413
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
413 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1882 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Please proceed, Mrs. Alito.
Seriously though she's just exposing more and more how the Court is an absolute sham that isn't even close to impartial. It actually convinces me that long terms are a bad idea for everyone -- including the judges' family.
The Supreme Court must be impartial, and that binds not only the judge but their immediate family as well. It's unrealistic to expect people to show political impartiality for that long, and the way that it should work is that judges effectively give up their right to free political speech while serving. They cannot be allowed to express political opinion whatsoever.
With that in mind, shorter terms with a much larger body of justices feel appropriate. There also needs to be a new check on the Supreme Court so that their word isn't final -- the very idea goes against our idea of Checks and Balances. 2/3 of Congress, or a simple majority of Congress plus the President should be able to override the Court.
Anyway, what I remind myself when I get pissed about this -- reform will happen. These cretins have made it inevitable. The only question is when, and each time they spew their vile hate, the justices and their spouses bring us closer to reform.
The checks and balances you're describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven't passed one since Clinton was in office.
If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.
But there are checks against their rulings.
Most of their decisions are around laws that can be rewritten to correct whatever negative outcome was seen in the court. This meets your simple majority and presidential signature standard.
For claims of constitutionality there is still a check via amending the constitution... Which is not far from your proposal of 2/3 of Congress. You just also have to clear 3/4 of the states.
I think the problem is the idiots that are supposed to be the check are fully supporting what the courts are doing--and the idiots don't actually represent the interests or will of the people.
There's already a "check" on the court. The President nominates them and Congress approves them. Also, just because the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it won't happen.
They have no enforcement mechanism. The President can execute laws how they interpret them. Congress can just pass slightly different versions of the same law. The Supreme Court is the weakest of the branches. People just need to fucking vote in their elections and the problem will solve itself.
If you go visit a small Republican town you will notice that people don't usually protest, they just donate to politicians and vote. That's how you win.
Fucking vote.
Conservatives: "Who cares? We won and have full control. Morality and ethics are for the weak and for us to use as cudgels when we aren't in power."