Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:47 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:09 am 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.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:50 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:47 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:09 am 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?

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:07 pmYes.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:47 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:09 am 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.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:32 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 4:52 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:32 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 5:13 pm 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.

Shirley wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 9:48 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 5:13 pm 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

Sparko wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 8:44 pm Cue France. Now let's bury these bastards by voting.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 11:47 am Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 11:47 am
Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 12:18 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 11:47 am Now, may I ask you to elaborate on these “traps” the right wing are so sophisticatedly laying?

viewtopic.php?t=4197