SCOTUS

[KUTradition]

Question for anyone to answer.

I admit my ignorance. Supposedly Congress (and "the states"?) have SOME power over the Supreme Court.
I have read that "Congress" does NOT have the authority to "abolish" the Supreme Court but let's say the Supreme Court went especially nutso and made horrible decisions that would lead to the destruction of the country. What powers are in place to prevent it from happening?

In general, the idea is that the legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law.

So in theory, the judicial branch should fill in the gaps in laws passed by Congress.

That theory falls apart some when the judicial branch takes an expansive view of its role, including by overzealously (and I would say selectively) declaring some laws to be illegal in the womb (sorry).

No law that is not the Constitution trumps the Constitution.

And so if your question is specific to - can Congress legislate away from this week’s Supreme Court holding as to the President’s immunity under the Constitution as it sits…the answer is probably not. And it will be the Court that answers the question…so you tell me how you think that goes.

And so the short answer to that question is that fixing this problem - which is now the law of the land - almost certainly requires an amendment to the Constitution. Which, considering the approval threshold for those, seems highly unrealistic any time soon.

or (if we make it that far down the road), an overturning by some future SCOTUS, right?

[jfish26]

Question for anyone to answer.

I admit my ignorance. Supposedly Congress (and "the states"?) have SOME power over the Supreme Court.
I have read that "Congress" does NOT have the authority to "abolish" the Supreme Court but let's say the Supreme Court went especially nutso and made horrible decisions that would lead to the destruction of the country. What powers are in place to prevent it from happening?

In general, the idea is that the legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law.

So in theory, the judicial branch should fill in the gaps in laws passed by Congress.

That theory falls apart some when the judicial branch takes an expansive view of its role, including by overzealously (and I would say selectively) declaring some laws to be illegal in the womb (sorry).

No law that is not the Constitution trumps the Constitution.

And so if your question is specific to - can Congress legislate away from this week’s Supreme Court holding as to the President’s immunity under the Constitution as it sits…the answer is probably not. And it will be the Court that answers the question…so you tell me how you think that goes.

And so the short answer to that question is that fixing this problem - which is now the law of the land - almost certainly requires an amendment to the Constitution. Which, considering the approval threshold for those, seems highly unrealistic any time soon.

or (if we make it that far down the road), an overturning by some future SCOTUS, right?

Correct.

For example, scholars on (ugh) both sides (UGH UGH UGH) have noted a LOT of internal inconsistencies in the opinion itself. Not just its lack of basis in history or precedent, but conflicts within the opinion itself.

That’s the sort of thing that a future court could use to obliterate this opinion and restate the interpretation of the Constitution’s immunity concepts.

But of course we’re getting at the race against time that we’ve been talking about here for years: will minority rule be so entrenched by the time this matters, that it can’t matter?

[Overlander]

Yes.

[jfish26]

Yes.

I’m not there yet.

But my record is also that I’ve been overly optimistic about the fever breaking.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Question for anyone to answer.

I admit my ignorance. Supposedly Congress (and "the states"?) have SOME power over the Supreme Court.
I have read that "Congress" does NOT have the authority to "abolish" the Supreme Court but let's say the Supreme Court went especially nutso and made horrible decisions that would lead to the destruction of the country. What powers are in place to prevent it from happening?

In general, the idea is that the legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law.

So in theory, the judicial branch should fill in the gaps in laws passed by Congress.

That theory falls apart some when the judicial branch takes an expansive view of its role, including by overzealously (and I would say selectively) declaring some laws to be illegal in the womb (sorry).

No law that is not the Constitution trumps the Constitution.

And so if your question is specific to - can Congress legislate away from this week’s Supreme Court holding as to the President’s immunity under the Constitution as it sits…the answer is probably not. And it will be the Court that answers the question…so you tell me how you think that goes.

And so the short answer to that question is that fixing this problem - which is now the law of the land - almost certainly requires an amendment to the Constitution. Which, considering the approval threshold for those, seems highly unrealistic any time soon.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. PART of my interpretation is - something/s should probably change before we find out the possible EXTREME repercussions.

[zsn]

Minority rule has been firmly entrenched. The 6-3 ideological majority consists of those nominated by popular vote losers (except that criminal Thomas) and confirmed by those who represent a minority of people.

Anyone who believes that we’re a democracy is delusional; this was indeed confirmed by the Court this week.

[Shirley]

Minority rule has been firmly entrenched. The 6-3 ideological majority consists of those nominated by popular vote losers (except that criminal Thomas) and confirmed by those who represent a minority of people.

Anyone who believes that we’re a democracy is delusional; this was indeed confirmed by the Court this week.

^^^ x 11.

The only good news I've heard since the SCOTUS decisions over the last week is that unlike the president, anyone on his staff who assists him in conducting illegal schemes does not enjoy the same teflon coating, i.e., "immunity". Of course, that would necessitate a DOJ that isn't under Trump's thumb, but it's something.

right?

[jfish26]

Minority rule has been firmly entrenched. The 6-3 ideological majority consists of those nominated by popular vote losers (except that criminal Thomas) and confirmed by those who represent a minority of people.

Anyone who believes that we’re a democracy is delusional; this was indeed confirmed by the Court this week.

^^^ x 11.

The only good news I've heard since the SCOTUS decisions over the last week is that unlike the president, anyone on his staff who assists him in conducting illegal schemes does not enjoy the same teflon coating, i.e., "immunity". Of course, that would necessitate a DOJ that isn't under Trump's thumb, but it's something.

right?

'cept he can pardon anyone he wants, for whatever he wants in return, and this is unreviewable.

[Sparko]

Yay! Let's rig the system so that it implodes. Trump would destroy prosperity in about 10 days.

[jfish26]

By far the SCARIEST part of the Court’s ruling is that it went as far as it went, with full knowledge of the implications of the Court eventually flipping back to D-leaning.

That tells me the right has less than zero thought of ever losing control of the Court.

[Sparko]

Cue France. Now let's bury these bastards by voting.

[Shirley]

By far the SCARIEST part of the Court’s ruling is that it went as far as it went, with full knowledge of the implications of the Court eventually flipping back to D-leaning.

That tells me the right has less than zero thought of ever losing control of the Court.

And, their decision to legalize bribery of public officials should only serve to make the oligarchy more assured, and entrenched.

#win/win

[jfish26]

By far the SCARIEST part of the Court’s ruling is that it went as far as it went, with full knowledge of the implications of the Court eventually flipping back to D-leaning.

That tells me the right has less than zero thought of ever losing control of the Court.

And, their decision to legalize bribery of public officials should only serve to make the oligarchy more assured, and entrenched.

#win/win

Two neighbors of mine, arguing over all of this Supreme Court stuff (but especially the immunity power grab), agreed (in a facebook comment section) that "Just maybe the Supreme Court decided our judicial system needed to be used properly rather than going after persons that don't think like, or translate the law like some do. As a bystander and proud American I'm truly disenchanted with supposed legal experts that believe their translation of laws only work to their advantage. Case in point has been happening for years."

This just makes me sad, on so many levels.

[ousdahl]

Cue France. Now let's bury these bastards by voting.

France quashed a far-right uprising by forming a coalition among the left.


Yea let’s do it!

[jfish26]

So what you're saying is, French voters managed to avert catastrophe by keeping focus on the big picture and not getting sucked, one by one, into right wing traps laid for each of their particular soft spots.

[ousdahl]

Ummm

Wut?

That’s not what I said.

It’s more something like, form a coalition among the left by strategically moving to the left.

Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

[jfish26]

Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

viewtopic.php?t=4197

[DeletedUser]

Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

He's back!

[jhawks99]

Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

viewtopic.php?t=4197

Did you know that the US provoked Putin into invading Ukraine?

[Sparko]

Hitting the Children's hospital with a geo-located cruise missile was the end for me. I am ready to simply try to take out Putin. Then deny it.