Law SCOTUS: Apex Court of Last Resort

[panamaican]

How does legislation handle the executive branch being handed the keys to the DOJ and granted immunity from anything that happens during an "official act" ever being used as evidence, even for another related crime? Serious question as I am drawing a blank. They could maybe define officials acts or something, but in the process they'd give the potus a roadmap for how to scheme shit up if they want to.

Also, I don't buy that a decision reflects the will of the people after the fact of an election. The decisions may literally be the catalyst for a regime change (like overturning Roe), but they endure regardless, and the justices are lifetime appointments.

They simply take away the power of the executive to handle those things. The DOJ is a legislative creation, not an executive one. It was born out of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the creation of an attorney general. Congress can absolutely amend that act (and others) to reflect Congress's concerns. And, yeah, they could legislate what an "official act" is.

Justices are lifetime appointments but they can be impeached and removed from the bench. The number of justices can be shrunk. So impeach a few, shrink the bench so no new ones are added that term. The Constitution only requires 1 Supreme Court Justice.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are tons of options available to the people and the other branches of government to deal with a SCOTUS that they don't like. But, and this is the real issue, there has to be enough people unhappy with these outcomes to galvanize voters to elect representatives to enforce the changes that they want. And given that roughly half the country like DJT and have been trying to get Roe overruled for decades, it's hard to argue that there are enough unhappy people for that to happen.

And, hence, representative democracy. Some decisions we hate but we still must abide by them.

 

[Sinister]

Most of what you're commenting on are political questions, not functional government questions. People not agreeing with SCOTUS decisions doesn't mean that SCOTUS isn't operating appropriately. It just means their opinions are unpopular with some people. If people disagree with GOP policies at the state level, they can raise those challenges or they can find a way to take control of the legislature and implement their preferences.

And justices lying about their feelings on Roe doesn't really change what I'm saying. If their opinion on Roe was the sole reason to vote for or against them then it's returned to a political question, not a judicial one or one of governance. People who support a political policy want justices that support their political philosophy. They got justices that support a different political philosophy. It's a little bit hypocritical, imo, to complain about the political nature of justices when their political leanings were what was being evaluated. Precedence isn't really binding, if it was Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land, as would separate but equal. The courts overturned precedence to achieve that and no one argues that they should have stood by the old rule just because it was the old rule.

And the system isn't flawed because of the SCOTUS. They are the check on the legislature and the executive. Let's take the overturning of Roe (an opinion that I disagree with) -- Congress can pass a federal law related to abortion, they can fit it within a wide area of areas that the federal government can regulate. And every state can protect abortion if they want. The will of the people hasn't been overridden solely because the SCOTUS reversed a position that SCOTUS created in the first place.

Moreover, Congress can change the number of justices if they want. The Constitution only calls for 1. Any number above that is up to the other branches. If Congress really disagrees with this judiciary, they have the power to address them via impeachment. There are checks and balances. But, as with all things, the outcomes have to be truly egregious at a national scale, not just one half of the political divide.

See this is exactly why Deorum stated that I come off as having disdain for US History, because I dont like how systemic deficiencies are consistently brushed off to maintain this view of our system as not inherently flawed, or not AS flawed, in a manner which almost always just passes the buck when dealing with disingenuous actors. Dude, the SCOTUS is corrupt. At least one member is receiving MILLIONS of dollars in bribes, and more evidence keeps coming out of him hiding it. The SCOTUS has recently declared that they are beyond checks from Congress, that Congress simply cannot regulate them. Not only that but there are NUMEROUS viewable House Judicial oversight hearings detailing exactly how the system was manipulated to let idealogs onto the Court. This also involved a Senate majority leader constructing an arbitrary rule when it suited him, then deconstructing that same rule when it was politically convenient. If the Court CAN even be captured in a such a manner, and it's the one branch that dishonest actors know is accountable only to itself, this has to be seen as a structural weakness.

Making the argument that the Court's "interpretation"...which is subject to their personal biases (regardless of what these "originalists" claim, which is a way of claiming that they have consensus of dead men who never had complete consensus when they were alive) is the people's problem is nonsensical. Its indicative that it's ok to rule, and not to Govern. And when their politics were being evaluated, they lied, because the knew they could. I think precedence should be more adherent in any situation where we are talking about constricting rights as opposed to expanding them, and traditionally that was the case. Except this, this was a full-steam approach to restricting a right regardless of how the majority of the Country felt about it, and aimed at an entire demographic. And no, it's not as simple as the Federal Government codifying Roe and with your background you know that, as the SCOTUS can also deem that unconstitutional. It would maybe take a few more years, and a few more mountains of paperwork, but codification isnt as solid of a proposal as it sounds like.

And then the States' Rights argument always pops up in some context. You're suggesting people in any State can just protect abortion rights. I've demonstrated in the few threads about ballot measures how that's not always the case as Republicans are already working to strip away democracy to stop that from happening, emboldened by the Supreme Court, who keep gutting constitutional protections under the guise of this alleged "originalism." And even when this Supreme Court has ordered States to change voting districts because the racism was TOO blatant and inexcusable, we've seen States outright refuse to because their legislatures just refuse to allow for an environment where they might actually have to cede power. Suggesting that the people can just change all this in a Country where these challenges are entertained, excused, and where partisan gerrymandering is legal is farcical at best.

 

[sickc0d3r]

They simply take away the power of the executive to handle those things. The DOJ is a legislative creation, not an executive one. It was born out of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the creation of an attorney general. Congress can absolutely amend that act (and others) to reflect Congress's concerns. And, yeah, they could legislate what an "official act" is.

Justices are lifetime appointments but they can be impeached and removed from the bench. The number of justices can be shrunk. So impeach a few, shrink the bench so no new ones are added that term. The Constitution only requires 1 Supreme Court Justice.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are tons of options available to the people and the other branches of government to deal with a SCOTUS that they don't like. But, and this is the real issue, there has to be enough people unhappy with these outcomes to galvanize voters to elect representatives to enforce the changes that they want. And given that roughly half the country like DJT and have been trying to get Roe overruled for decades, it's hard to argue that there are enough unhappy people for that to happen.

And, hence, representative democracy. Some decisions we hate but we still must abide by them.

Yeah, fair point about the DOJ, but all of this stuff requires congress to pass something without getting filibustered. And as long as justices are lifetime political entities accepting gifts and handing out rulings that benefit one party or the other, it never will be as simple as "the will of the people" again.
It's the difference between coffee house arguments about how things are intended to work and modern reality. I doubt the founders intended for a supermajority to be required to pass laws.

 

[sickc0d3r]

To be fair, I guess the senate can go ahead and expand the court any time they want with a simple majority. So, yeah, let's win in November and pack that bitch, baby.

 

[Rob Battisti]

To be fair, I guess the senate can go ahead and expand the court any time they want with a simple majority. So, yeah, let's win in November and pack that bitch, baby.

Do you only want to pack the court because you don’t agree with the current justices? That’s how it seems.

 

[Rob Battisti]

See this is exactly why Deorum stated that I come off as having disdain for US History, because I dont like how systemic deficiencies are consistently brushed off to maintain this view of our system as not inherently flawed, or not AS flawed, in a manner which almost always just passes the buck when dealing with disingenuous actors. Dude, the SCOTUS is corrupt. At least one member is receiving MILLIONS of dollars in bribes, and more evidence keeps coming out of him hiding it. The SCOTUS has recently declared that they are beyond checks from Congress, that Congress simply cannot regulate them. Not only that but there are NUMEROUS viewable House Judicial oversight hearings detailing exactly how the system was manipulated to let idealogs onto the Court. This also involved a Senate majority leader constructing an arbitrary rule when it suited him, then deconstructing that same rule when it was politically convenient. If the Court CAN even be captured in a such a manner, and it's the one branch that dishonest actors know is accountable only to itself, this has to be seen as a structural weakness.

Making the argument that the Court's "interpretation"...which is subject to their personal biases (regardless of what these "originalists" claim, which is a way of claiming that they have consensus of dead men who never had complete consensus when they were alive) is the people's problem is nonsensical. Its indicative that it's ok to rule, and not to Govern. And when their politics were being evaluated, they lied, because the knew they could. I think precedence should be more adherent in any situation where we are talking about constricting rights as opposed to expanding them, and traditionally that was the case. Except this, this was a full-steam approach to restricting a right regardless of how the majority of the Country felt about it, and aimed at an entire demographic. And no, it's not as simple as the Federal Government codifying Roe and with your background you know that, as the SCOTUS can also deem that unconstitutional. It would maybe take a few more years, and a few more mountains of paperwork, but codification isnt as solid of a proposal as it sounds like.

And then the States' Rights argument always pops up in some context. You're suggesting people in any State can just protect abortion rights. I've demonstrated in the few threads about ballot measures how that's not always the case as Republicans are already working to strip away democracy to stop that from happening, emboldened by the Supreme Court, who keep gutting constitutional protections under the guise of this alleged "originalism." And even when this Supreme Court has ordered States to change voting districts because the racism was TOO blatant and inexcusable, we've seen States outright refuse to because their legislatures just refuse to allow for an environment where they might actually have to cede power. Suggesting that the people can just change all this in a Country where these challenges are entertained, excused, and where partisan gerrymandering is illegal is farcical at best.

Before I respond to all of this, have you ever pondered a solution?

 

[panamaican]

See this is exactly why Deorum stated that I come off as having disdain for US History, because I dont like how systemic deficiencies are consistently brushed off to maintain this view of our system as not inherently flawed, or not AS flawed, in a manner which almost always just passes the buck when dealing with disingenuous actors. Dude, the SCOTUS is corrupt. At least one member is receiving MILLIONS of dollars in bribes, and more evidence keeps coming out of him hiding it. The SCOTUS has recently declared that they are beyond checks from Congress, that Congress simply cannot regulate them. Not only that but there are NUMEROUS viewable House Judicial oversight hearings detailing exactly how the system was manipulated to let idealogs onto the Court. This also involved a Senate majority leader constructing an arbitrary rule when it suited him, then deconstructing that same rule when it was politically convenient. If the Court CAN even be captured in a such a manner, and it's the one branch that dishonest actors know is accountable only to itself, this has to be seen as a structural weakness.

Making the argument that the Court's "interpretation"...which is subject to their personal biases (regardless of what these "originalists" claim, which is a way of claiming that they have consensus of dead men who never had complete consensus when they were alive) is the people's problem is nonsensical. Its indicative that it's ok to rule, and not to Govern. And when their politics were being evaluated, they lied, because the knew they could. I think precedence should be more adherent in any situation where we are talking about constricting rights as opposed to expanding them, and traditionally that was the case. Except this, this was a full-steam approach to restricting a right regardless of how the majority of the Country felt about it, and aimed at an entire demographic. And no, it's not as simple as the Federal Government codifying Roe and with your background you know that, as the SCOTUS can also deem that unconstitutional. It would maybe take a few more years, and a few more mountains of paperwork, but codification isnt as solid of a proposal as it sounds like.

And then the States' Rights argument always pops up in some context. You're suggesting people in any State can just protect abortion rights. I've demonstrated in the few threads about ballot measures how that's not always the case as Republicans are already working to strip away democracy to stop that from happening, emboldened by the Supreme Court, who keep gutting constitutional protections under the guise of this alleged "originalism." And even when this Supreme Court has ordered States to change voting districts because the racism was TOO blatant and inexcusable, we've seen States outright refuse to because their legislatures just refuse to allow for an environment where they might actually have to cede power. Suggesting that the people can just change all this in a Country where these challenges are entertained, excused, and where partisan gerrymandering is illegal is farcical at best.

I don't think they are systemic deficiencies but it is not a perfect system. However, there is a difference between the system being flawed and there being bad actors within the system. It's important to draw appropriate distinctions. Just because a Trump abuses the Presidential office doesn't mean that the office itself is flawed.

And SCOTUS did not say Congress cannot regulate the courts. They said that Congress cannot regulate SCOTUS ethics. Which is probably accurate because the Constitution has already stated that Justices only serve while on good behavior. This has long been interpreted as Congress has the power to impeach a SCOTUS justice. That's the remedy. If they think a justice is being unethical, impeach him/her and remove them from the bench. The same as with the President.

Again, there's a difference between a politically unlikely outcome and a government imposed impossibility.

Let's take the gerrymandering issue for a moment. If we can agree on the premise that the GOP is gerrymandering certain districts so that the incumbents in those areas never lose then what happens if the demographics of those areas change? For a real life example: Harlem used to be a very black part of NYC, an area that would reliably produce politicians connected to black issues. But economics have changed the demographics of Harlem. That will change the politicians produced by Harlem. If Harlem was gerrymandered for one political party's benefit and the demographics changed then the old political party would be iced out of that area. Will it happen overnight? Of course not. But it does happen. The GOP's Southern Strategy of the 60s and 70s is evidence of how entire regions can switch their political affiliation in a relatively short period of time.

So, to me, it's important to distinguish between areas where we disagree with the political outcomes vs. where the government system itself is flawed.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, fair point about the DOJ, but all of this stuff requires congress to pass something without getting filibustered. And as long as justices are lifetime political entities accepting gifts and handing out rulings that benefit one party or the other, it never will be as simple as "the will of the people" again.
It's the difference between coffee house arguments about how things are intended to work and modern reality. I doubt the founders intended for a supermajority to be required to pass laws.

I think the founders very much did consider the reality of how things worked. They were fairly pragmatic about the limitations of government...which is why they never wanted too much power in the federal government. They didn't want a government that could quickly and easily pass laws, they felt that oppositional nature of politics would yield better results.

The filibuster itself has been around since the very first Congress. The super-majority cloture rule was introduced as a way to stop Senators from talking bills to death. Without it, a senator could just talk and talk and talk and then someone else could talk and talk and talk and nothing would get done. We're actually more efficient about this stuff that we used to be. Someone wants to talk a bill to death? Okay, do we have enough votes to end the debate? Yes, good, now we can vote. In the past, there wasn't a way to stop them.

 

[Deorum]

Anyone who even hints at “do we have to adhere to what white slave owners thought” think the constitution is nothing but a document which stems from a poisoned tree. They don’t want anything but to throw the whole thing out and start over.

Yeah, the thing with throwing it out and starting over is that it won't change or even tangibly correct for the cruel injustices of the past nor bring any comfort to the people who suffered them. However, it would cut off and fold on how far our country has managed to come in spite of them and within the existing constitutional framework at that. It was historic and revolutionary for its time and remains robust today, particularly when the concept of American liberty is extended to all citizens and makes good on its ethos and promise.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Do you only want to pack the court because you don’t agree with the current justices? That’s how it seems.

If you’re implying I wouldn’t feel the same had they ruled differently on Roe, that’s not the case. I actually prefer a slightly conservative court to begin with, and states will work that issue out in the long run. It’s annoying that they are so willing to ignore precedent, but it’s not like a lot of people don’t agree with that one.

It’s the immunity they’ve given themselves and the president (when they have the scotus backing them of course) that scares me. Fuck having 9 people with lifetime appointments effectively running the country.

Of course I also disagree with them being openly partisan, accepting millions in gifts, and threatening the president for suggesting ways to check their power. Impeachment is the one obvious check that congress has for blatant ethics violators like Thomas, but it doesn’t really exist thanks to partisan influence and the unreachable vote requirement. I’d be good with imposing term limits and ethics rules, but that also takes more political will than we’ll ever have without a supermajority.

Packing the court seems like the only realistic check.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I think the founders very much did consider the reality of how things worked. They were fairly pragmatic about the limitations of government...which is why they never wanted too much power in the federal government. They didn't want a government that could quickly and easily pass laws, they felt that oppositional nature of politics would yield better results.

The filibuster itself has been around since the very first Congress. The super-majority cloture rule was introduced as a way to stop Senators from talking bills to death. Without it, a senator could just talk and talk and talk and then someone else could talk and talk and talk and nothing would get done. We're actually more efficient about this stuff that we used to be. Someone wants to talk a bill to death? Okay, do we have enough votes to end the debate? Yes, good, now we can vote. In the past, there wasn't a way to stop them.

Yeah, the filibuster was also rarely used until very recently, and when Obama was elected it simply became the way. The nuclear option had to be created for that reason. And now we’ve been shown that we can no longer just assume norms will be followed. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner.

Anyway, I guess I will take comfort knowing all this is the system working as intended. I say let’s do the thing we need to do, pack that court and work that system.

 

[Rob Battisti]

If you’re implying I wouldn’t feel the same had they ruled differently on Roe, that’s not the case. I actually prefer a slightly conservative court to begin with, and states will work that issue out in the long run. It’s annoying that they are so willing to ignore precedent, but it’s not like a lot of people don’t agree with that one.

It’s the immunity they’ve given themselves and the president (when they have the scotus backing them of course) that scares me. Fuck having 9 people with lifetime appointments effectively running the country.

Of course I also disagree with them being openly partisan, accepting millions in gifts, and threatening the president for suggesting ways to check their power. Impeachment is the one obvious check that congress has for blatant ethics violators like Thomas, but it doesn’t really exist thanks to partisan influence and the unreachable vote requirement. I’d be good with imposing term limits and ethics rules, but that also takes more political will than we’ll ever have without a supermajority.

Packing the court seems like the only realistic check.

Would you settle for term limits and gift restrictions versus packing the court?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Would you settle for term limits and gift restrictions versus packing the court?

Throw in a few well defined ethics rules and impeaching Thomas and we’ve got a deal. Even if Trump wins and gets to pick the replacement, that’s the kind of message I’d like to send.

 

[avenue94]

Would you settle for term limits and gift restrictions versus packing the court?

The terms have to be staggered as well, but this approach would go a long way toward aligning with Supreme Court with "best practices" so to speak in modern democracies.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Throw in a few well defined ethics rules and impeaching Thomas and we’ve got a deal. Even if Trump wins and gets to pick the replacement, that’s the kind of message I’d like to send.

I agree with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's also the not insignificant issue that most originalists on the Supreme Court ignore originalism as soon as it becomes inconvenient. That constitutional approach by and large is a fig leaf to justify dubious means for a predetermined end.

It's not even clear that any of the Founding Fathers would be originalists given they routinely tore up existing ideas.

Deeper issue is that originalism is incoherent, and even if someone were actually committed to consistently applying the principle, they would not be able to. But, yeah, people cynically use and discard it depend on whether it lines up with what they want to do anyway.

 

[Deorum]

I agree that the amendment process is unfortunately broken now, but activists judges ruling the country is not the way. We need the bedrock of the greatest document in history.

I think I was misunderstood on this, I have no issue with the amendment process. I'm of the mind that if you're going to fundamentally alter the national framework of a country, then the standard for doing so damn well should be as high as it is. @Islam Imamate's description of America as a conservative republic in another thread was on point. I also learned to love the gridlock a long time ago because I'm not particularly crazy about a bunch of top-down federal laws being passed. The states have their own legislatures for that, and the bills signed into law are more directly representative of the constituent populations and their respective industries, subcultures, and priorities. The only thing I really want out of Congress is to fund essential national departments, agencies, institutions, and programs.

 

[Deorum]

Would you settle for term limits and gift restrictions versus packing the court?

@sickc0d3r is up in the Colorado Rockies smoking the devil's lettuce and plotting high-tech lynchings.

Throw in a few well defined ethics rules and impeaching Thomas and we’ve got a deal. Even if Trump wins and gets to pick the replacement, that’s the kind of message I’d like to send.

It would be quite a modern spectacle. Samuel Chase is the only SCOTUS justice to have ever been impeached, and that was in 1804. However, he was acquitted by the Senate and remained on the court until his death in 1811. Abe Fortas voluntarily resigned in 1969 under the threat of it, and that's the entire historical extent of Supreme Court removals. If DJT wins and the GOP takes back the Senate, they're going to want Thomas and/or Alito to step down on account of high-risk advanced age, and I don't think either of them will be up for that.

 

[Sinister]

She should sick the DOJ on them.

Well well well:

 

[sickc0d3r]

Well well well:

Oh how the turns have tabled, my friend.