the official new supreme court thread - Very political

[Colonel Angus]

Uh, changes to the Constitution cannot be made through legislation...

'Legislation' meaning the amendment process is driven by Congress or state legislatures - Not a new law. Apologies if that wasn't more clear.

But I suggest you and others re-read Article V which walks through the amendment process.

 

[WakeandBake]

You’re gonna need to brush up on your communication skills if you want to stay on the executive committee, son

 

[deaconson]

Dumbass who is afraid of activist judges supports dark money Federalist Society-screened "originalist" activist judges purely beholden to corporate interests and the interests of the society's anonymous donors.

There's something about this standing point that I can't quite put my finger on.

 

[ConnorEl]

On second thought, let's not go to Originalism...’tis a silly place.

 

[IamThunderbolt]

it's almost like the ones most obsessed with the document don't even bother to read it

So many parallels between originalism and Biblical literalism.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I just look forward to protesting the overturning of the ACA that was passed through legislation as the Constitution intended.

 

[Highland Deac]

I just look forward to protesting the overturning of the ACA that was passed through legislation as the Constitution intended.

Indeed. Which, I suspect, will be only the first of many such overturnings of progressive or liberal legislation. But remember, originalists don't legislate from the bench!

 

[PhDeac]

Nope. Originalists are a check on those who legislate from...the legislature?

 

[deaconson]

And Murkowski goes on the record as a yes vote.

 

[dcnelso]

Since we’ve seemed to lose all political norms, my assumption is we have a complete dereliction of duty from the supreme court next. And, I was thinking of this crazy scenario the other day and the potential implications of this type of crisis would be crazy.

Let’s say Biden wins and the democrats win the Senate; then at some point they pass legislation to add 2 justices to the supreme court. The republicans file suit to block the additional justices, and even though there is nothing in the constitution about the actual number of justices and it has varied throughout US history, the conservatives with ACB vote 5-4 that “packing the court” is unconstitutional.

This scenario, which I can see occurring with the crazy partisanship we are in today, would then cause a constitutional crisis. We’ve all basically assumed that the supreme court could “interpret” law and provide guidance towards what is legal, but if they become fully partisan and kill everything from the opposing party, we have the potential of losing the legitimacy of the court. I’m not sure what would come of this scenario.

 

[PhDeac]

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. A conservative Court that continues to act against the will of the people would be spitting into the wind. Eventually Democrats would stop fretting about them and just ignore them. Actually any reforms should be pitched as restoring the integrity of the court.

 

[deactherunner]

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. A conservative Court that continues to act against the will of the people would be spitting into the wind. Eventually Democrats would stop fretting about them and just ignore them. Actually any reforms should be pitched as restoring the integrity of the court.

This still sounds like a constitutional crisis.

 

[PhDeac]

This still sounds like a constitutional crisis.

Oh definitely. Just saying it’s a crisis we may just live with. The founding fathers never thought anybody besides white men would have the right to vote or be able to represent their country. They certainly couldn’t envision a coalition of mostly women and BIPOC taking over a political party that represents the majority of Americans. So the idea of a homogenous party attempting to control the country through the courts was unimaginable.

 

[DeacsPop]

Since we’ve seemed to lose all political norms, my assumption is we have a complete dereliction of duty from the supreme court next. And, I was thinking of this crazy scenario the other day and the potential implications of this type of crisis would be crazy.

Let’s say Biden wins and the democrats win the Senate; then at some point they pass legislation to add 2 justices to the supreme court. The republicans file suit to block the additional justices, and even though there is nothing in the constitution about the actual number of justices and it has varied throughout US history, the conservatives with ACB vote 5-4 that “packing the court” is unconstitutional.

This scenario, which I can see occurring with the crazy partisanship we are in today, would then cause a constitutional crisis. We’ve all basically assumed that the supreme court could “interpret” law and provide guidance towards what is legal, but if they become fully partisan and kill everything from the opposing party, we have the potential of losing the legitimacy of the court. I’m not sure what would come of this scenario.

Wow, do you stay up at night thinking of these things?

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about expanding The Court. There would be no basis for the Pubs to sue to block the effort. The “suit” would never even be heard by a lower court let alone the Supreme Court.

Constitutional crisis averted.

 

[dcnelso]

Wow, do you stay up at night thinking of these things?

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about expanding The Court. There would be no basis for the Pubs to sue to block the effort. The “suit” would never even be heard by a lower court let alone the Supreme Court.

Constitutional crisis averted.

It's more an academic thought exercise, but technically what is constitutional is whatever the majority of the supreme court says. Luckily we haven't veered into this realm yet in terms of totally killing political norms, but its not outside of the bounds. There has been an enhanced signaling effect lately where, especially Thomas and Alito, write about precedents they would like to re-examine. It isn't totally outside the bounds that at some point we get totally partisan justices that only rule based on ideological lanes and the law becomes whoever is in power at the time.

 

[deaconson]

That point is now. The last two Supreme Court nominees have been completely partisan with huge, glaring red flags about being unfit for the office. Add, Clarence Thomas. Those accusations should have tanked him immediately. Its not like there weren't plenty of other... similarly (or better) qualified people to step in to the position ensuring the America people don't become disillusioned with the highest court in the land. Instead we've got sexual harassment allegations, a hundred dismissed misconduct accusations, and an academic appointed to higher courts with... limited... on the job experience. Not hiring for ideology!

 

[WFFaithful]

Wow, do you stay up at night thinking of these things?

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about expanding The Court. There would be no basis for the Pubs to sue to block the effort. The “suit” would never even be heard by a lower court let alone the Supreme Court.

Constitutional crisis averted.

Luckily for us, the Republicans have decided that rules, norms, and ethics no longer matter when it comes to making the liberals cry.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Wow, do you stay up at night thinking of these things?

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about expanding The Court. There would be no basis for the Pubs to sue to block the effort. The “suit” would never even be heard by a lower court let alone the Supreme Court.

Constitutional crisis averted.

Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them and the judges who rule on them. The judges you have been so happy to support them at have a different view of “unconstitutional” than you do.

 

[Highland Deac]

That point is now. The last two Supreme Court nominees have been completely partisan with huge, glaring red flags about being unfit for the office. Add, Clarence Thomas. Those accusations should have tanked him immediately. Its not like there weren't plenty of other... similarly (or better) qualified people to step in to the position ensuring the America people don't become disillusioned with the highest court in the land. Instead we've got sexual harassment allegations, a hundred dismissed misconduct accusations, and an academic appointed to higher courts with... limited... on the job experience. Not hiring for ideology!

Yeah, I love the Republican arguments that the Democrats possibly trying to reform the Court - such as expanding it, or eliminating lifetime appointments in favor of term limits, and so on - will just politicize" the Court and turn it into a purely partisan instrument, when it's obvious that they are the ones who have struggled mightily for years to turn it into a partisan instrument by appointment dogmatic, hard-right justices who will block progressive measures, court decisions, or legislation while enforcing and supporting conservative ones. And that is thanks in large part to McConnell & Company. Trump & Senate Republicans didn't nominate Barrett because she's the best-qualified or because of whatever is on her resume, they appointed her to enforce conservative and GOP policies, and block or overturn liberal and progressive ones. The Court "partisanship" ship has already sailed, although to listen to Republicans it's only the radical LibDems who want to destroy the "legitimacy" of the Court.

 

[WakeForestRanger]