Law SCOTUS: Apex Court of Last Resort

[BFoe]

Instead of adding justices, why couldn't they remove 4?

I don’t think that’s possible without impeaching justices, but, honestly, I’m not sure. If Congress voted to remove seats, who gets removed? And when? Like, when they retire the seat doesn’t get filled? I have no idea.

I agree with @sickc0d3r —by what mechanism are we removing them? The Constitution says that the justices nominated by the POTUS and confirmed with advice and consent of the Senate “shall hold their offices in good behavior.” So aside from impeachment, I don’t really see a mechanism for removing them.

I do think there’s quite a bit we can do to curtail their power grab, even without passing an amendment.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Indeed, they need a massive bitch slap to show them who is boss, the legislature.

I’d be happy with realizing that the branches are supposed to be checks on each other.
In this political climate, legislature is severely limited. We will never see another amendment. Never. Impeachment is almost as impossible when the major parties (mostly one party, let’s be honest) don’t care about anything but keeping power.

Passing consequential laws without a supermajority is hard enough.

 

[BFoe]

Shame we didn’t have a Jackson in the Oval to tell them where they can stick such language.

If an amendment is needed to regulate the court, so be it.

The fact that Alito said that is fucking crazy. There are absolutely provisions in the Constitution that allow Congess to regulate SCOTUS. And what’s even more ironic, is that it’s actually the SCOTUS’s main power that isn’t in the Constitution. This whole business of judicial review, deciding what’s constitutional and what’s not—the Constitution never gave them the power to do that, they carved that power out for themselves in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don’t think that’s possible without impeaching justices, but, honestly, I’m not sure. If Congress voted to remove seats, who gets removed? And when? Like, when they retire the seat doesn’t get filled? I have no idea.

Last time they reduced the number, it was stipulated that it would be through attrition (that is, it would stay at six, which it was at that time, and then go to five after the next person died or retired). But I think Congress would be able to change it however they want.

 

[Andy Capp]

The fact that Alito said that is fucking crazy. There are absolutely provisions in the Constitution that allow Congess to regulate SCOTUS. And what’s even more ironic, is that it’s actually the SCOTUS’s main power that isn’t in the Constitution. This whole business of judicial review, deciding what’s constitutional and what’s not—the Constitution never gave them the power to do that, they carved that power out for themselves in Marbury v Madison.

Which should make impeachment a no-brainer, don't you think? Ditto Thomas. Like I said, here's hoping for a massive win for Dems and that they take the sticks out of their arses and stick it to these partisan justices. Or else their particular brand of heinous fuckery will continue into the next decade.

 

[Andy Capp]

I don’t think that’s possible without impeaching justices, but, honestly, I’m not sure. If Congress voted to remove seats, who gets removed? And when? Like, when they retire the seat doesn’t get filled? I have no idea.

Well, there's no harm in wishful thinking, I always say.

 

[Deorum]

Alito said that “No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

The fact that Alito said that is fucking crazy. There are absolutely provisions in the Constitution that allow Congess to regulate SCOTUS.

Alito thinks you want to sacrifice babies to Moloch, bro. I'm not kidding.

And what’s even more ironic, is that it’s actually the SCOTUS’s main power that isn’t in the Constitution. This whole business of judicial review, deciding what’s constitutional and what’s not—the Constitution never gave them the power to do that, they carved that power out for themselves in Marbury v Madison.

Yes.

Jefferson hated what came of that case.

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819)

“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” (Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept. 1820)

The Marbury v. Madison (1803) case firmly established the concept of judicial review in the United States that gives the SCOTUS power to strike down both executive actions and congressional legislation alike as unconstitutional; it's something which was heavily implied in the Federalist Papers and can be inferred from the Constitution, but isn't explicity granted nor stated.

 

[Deorum]

 

[My Spot]

I usually leave the pro-2A arguments in threads on here to Sherbros like @Gutter Chris, @My Spot, and @spamking. I "recuse" myself on the grounds that I have gradually become radical on this specific issue -- just completely unreasonable and totally unwilling to compromise. It's a waste of time for all involved. Anyhow, a militia by definition is composed of ordinary individual citizens. So, the idea that the framers intended for the government to restrict individual gun ownership but not gun ownership by militias makes no sense.

It actually makes Madison's writings in The Federal Papers completely devoid of reason. Is the Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rigits devoid of reason? Another founding father Samuel Adams remarked that the "Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” And as noted earlier, Madison's original draft of the 2A is a lot more direct. By all means, pursue your policy preferences but the only truly Constitutional form of gun control would be done through an Amendment to the Constitution.



EDIT: Redundant.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Last time they reduced the number, it was stipulated that it would be through attrition (that is, it would stay at six, which it was at that time, and then go to five after the next person died or retired). But I think Congress would be able to change it however they want.

Interesting, did not know that. Would love to see them put it to the test. Maybe have Jesse Venture fight Hulk Hogan, winner picks the judge that leaves.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I think it’s both interesting and encouraging that left right and center here all want to hold these judges to higher standards than are currently in place

 

[BFoe]

Which should make impeachment a no-brainer, don't you think? Ditto Thomas. Like I said, here's hoping for a massive win for Dems and that they take the sticks out of their arses and stick it to these partisan justices. Or else their particular brand of heinous fuckery will continue into the next decade.

Oh fuck, Thomas should’ve been impeached and removed already. Alito is probably deserving of it as well.

 

[Deorum]

Good luck getting Republicans to agree to that. Here's hoping for a Democrat landslide in November.

I don’t think that’s possible without impeaching justices, but, honestly, I’m not sure. If Congress voted to remove seats, who gets removed? And when? Like, when they retire the seat doesn’t get filled? I have no idea.

Last time they reduced the number, it was stipulated that it would be through attrition (that is, it would stay at six, which it was at that time, and then go to five after the next person died or retired). But I think Congress would be able to change it however they want.

Depending on how this election goes, they might be willing to sacrifice and impeach Thomas in exchange for not expanding the court.

Idk if I agree on the gridlock point(more on that later) but I understand your point because it does feel like its in some ways a manifestation of the conservative nature of the American Republic which we both agree is one of our strengths. And the point about state legislatures being closer to the people and thus better equipped for legislating for them does ring true to me, its the "laboratories of democracy" at work. From marijuana to abortion to gun rights, chances are whatever your policy priorities there's a state out there for you. And when you look at the local and state level you might be surprised at which party is delivering your preferred policies.

It seems the forum sees me now as more partisan because of my strong anti-Trump stance but I've said it before and I'll say it again, at the state and local level things can be very different. Those who have argued with me in the housing threads know I am a pro-construction urbanist and when it comes to the state level some red states are among the best at encouraging the building of new housing while Dem states like Cali are blocking housing to preserve Harvey Milk's camera store. Florida Dems in particular are awful, crooks and clowns the lot of them. I was even a fan of RDS for a minute because he had a good track record on the environment for the GOP which matters a lot to me at the state level given we are stewards of the Everglades.

Back to the point about gridlock, while I see your point what bothers me about it is the fact that its the result of partisanship. If we had gridlock because our representatives were mostly conservative in the sense of avoiding radical change and were deliberately embracing a state driven "laboratories of democracy" approach that would be one thing but no, its because of "factionalism" as the Founders might've called it. Its worrying when one party kills a bill written by one of their own because passing it would be inconvenient for their presidential nominee.

You are right that our decentralized governance is a strength but really it goes even further than that, we have an even finer, less coercive layer of governance on top of that from civil society institutions. So even before something comes before a state legislature, it may have been deliberated upon and decided on this way or that by certain non-governmental bodies in ways that influence the government's ultimate decision. Its not just that we have rule of law but we have a society and government that adheres to the spirit of the law, to norms which could be just as if not more binding than de jure regulations. Hence Mike Pence rejecting the idea that he had plenary authority over aspects of the election.

It's worth noting that there is a tried and proven method for passing consequential legislation that overrides the Senate filibuster which would otherwise require a 60-vote supermajority: the budget reconciliation procedure, at least once per year for spending bills and passed by simple majority and/or VP tiebreaker. This is how Biden was able to get both the American Rescue Plan Act (2021) and Inflation Reduction Act (2022) passed when Dems had control of both chambers. It wasn't necessary to pass the CHIPS and Science Act because that cleared the House (243-187) and Senate (64-33) with ease and more than enough bipartisan GOP support. It was really just a magnificent thing for our country that is going to pay massive dividends for decades to come.

I've mentioned this before, but the only reason it wasn't damn near unanimous is because the Democrats being Democrats took the liberty of adding massive investments into fundamental science research - a good thing, to be clear - that ballooned the original CHIPS Act proposal by nearly $200 billions, lol. And Science, see. You're going to get side-eyed consternation at best from Republicans when it comes to non-defense spending basic research, not necessarily for kooky religious reasons but because there's no guarantee of returns on investment. They don't like that. However, they (generally) will support applied science and technology bills that are certified boons to domestic industry and the country's long-term economic growth.

Oh fuck

 

[Deorum]

I’ve got my tldr ready to go for you brother! LFG!!

So, what's your general take on this whole shitshow anyway? A lot of the actions being suggested ITT to deal with it are quite dramatic. The contributors in here essentially feel like the GOP can "take civility politics, shine them up real nice....turn them sumbitches sideways, and Stick It STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY ASS!!!"

But they ain't on the Hill. The outrage would be fucking monumental and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The vitriolic bitterness would be eternal. I'm not convinced the Dems will actually pull triggers if given the chance. I think they'll attempt to compromise in some way...but perhaps not, not anymore. I dunno.

 

[sickc0d3r]

So, what's your general take on this whole shitshow anyway? A lot of the actions being suggested ITT to deal with it are quite dramatic. The contributors in here essentially feel like the GOP can "take civility politics, shine them up real nice....turn them sumbitches sideways, and Stick It STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY ASS!!!"

But they ain't on the Hill. The outrage would be fucking monumental and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The vitriolic bitterness would be eternal. I'm not convinced the Dems will actually pull triggers if given the chance. I think they'll attempt to compromise in some way...but perhaps not, not anymore. I dunno.

I lol’d, but, to be fair, Mitchie-boy already did some dry ass shoving with his dirty politics when voting on SC Justices.

So, you know, what’s good for the goose or the tortoise or whatever.

 

[kflo]

So, what's your general take on this whole shitshow anyway? A lot of the actions being suggested ITT to deal with it are quite dramatic. The contributors in here essentially feel like the GOP can "take civility politics, shine them up real nice....turn them sumbitches sideways, and Stick It STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY ASS!!!"

But they ain't on the Hill. The outrage would be fucking monumental and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The vitriolic bitterness would be eternal. I'm not convinced the Dems will actually pull triggers if given the chance. I think they'll attempt to compromise in some way...but perhaps not, not anymore. I dunno.

I think it’ll take more egregious rulings from this candy ass court and obviously control of the branches of government for the dems to go nuclear. Don’t think we’re there yet.

Shits broken for sure though.

I score this round 6-3 in my favor.

 

[Cartiac]

Instead of adding justices, why couldn't they remove 4?

Fuck, why stop at 4? If they are going to change the number to eliminate resistance to their authority why not change it to 0?

 

[Cartiac]

I support term limits and a binding code of conduct, so sure. The details could vary, but I am good with this approach in spirit.

Biden said the same thing, essentially, and got a pretty chilling warning from Gorsuch. Alito said that “No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

These guys are telling us in no uncertain terms that they believe they are the true power in this country. Now, if the DOJ does its thing and Thomas gets impeached, I’ll cool my jets for a while. Otherwise, I still support adding 4 seats and sending them a message that, yeah, Congress can check them if they have the political will, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Would you still support Congress adding 4 seats under a Republican president?

 

[kflo]

Fuck, why stop at 4? If they are going to change the number to eliminate resistance to their authority why not change it to 0?

Change it to 1 and make it a dual role of SCJ and Pres!

 

[Sinister]

Would you still support Congress adding 4 seats under a Republican president?

Specify:

Republican President? Or MAGA fascist?

Is the Senate balanced? Or is a guy like McConnel in charge who is prepared to make up nonsense rules only to turn right around and break them?