The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

gemini104104 said:
Considering SCOTUS has become so corrupted as a result of tRump's un American influence that has turned SCOTUS into a enemy of the State and a hostile mob against society, defeats the purpose of why the SCOTUS was created at not being created to wage war on Democracy. This includes aiding foreign enemies who desire for Democracy to be destroyed from within, violating the law it was put there to defend that being Constitutional law and being a right wing extremist threat to voting rights at becoming a terrorist organization that has alienated itself from defending Democracy, defending U.S. Constitutional law and defending the well being of society. Not only has tRump killed the republican party by causing it to be a un American cesspool of treason, sedition and other destructive endeavors against society and humanity but also SCOTUS too at being packed with right wing extremists who are a threat and a serious liability. Also as a result of the constant urge to vote, why have a SCOTUS that has become a mob of so-called republican dominated and unqualified tRump cronies who are a threat to voting rights. This in order to suck up to the will of this lawlessly hacked in criminal against humanity tRump? This includes these so-called justices of sedition who have betrayed society that they are there to protect:

A Harvard law professor on whether it’s time to rethink the nation’s highest court.

Author’s note, October 27: This conversation occurred in October 2018, shortly after Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. After Amy Coney Barrett’s rushed confirmation to the Court, just a week before the 2020 election, it feels newly relevant.

When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.

But it’s hard to defend the Supreme Court on these grounds today.

As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has argued, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.

So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet
Click to expand...

You can't change the Constitution of the United States. Only the States can do that.
The United States is not and never was a democracy. It is a federated republic.
 
gemini104104 said:
Anyway, these un American tRump kissers here should consider more reasons this un American majority SCOTUS should come under review, and groan all one likes because getting screwed by tRump and his gutter associates, hypocrites and traitors is really something to groan about. Yet thank goodness these un American tRump kissers won't be around forever but hopefully Democracy and civilization will be preserved for current and future generations to come. Also these un American and blasphemous hypocrites should realize the creators of U.S. Constitutional law and SCOTUS did not intend for SCOTUS to end up in the gutter to wage war on Democracy and the well being of society and U.S. Constitutional law.

The US supreme court has become a threat to democracy. Here's how we fix it
The court has been weaponized to skew political power and insulate extreme conservative coalitions from accountability
A rushed appointment in this moment would be a clear partisan power play, and further collapse the legitimacy of the supreme court.’ Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
Just a few days after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are moving quickly to appoint and confirm a replacement. A growing number of moderates, such as Eric Holder, are warning that should Republicans ram through an appointment, this fact, plus the deliberate blockade of Barack Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016, would justify a new Democratic administration and Congress to add seats to the supreme court to restore balance.

With voting already under way in the 2020 election, a rushed appointment and confirmation in this moment would be a clear partisan power play, and further collapse the legitimacy of the supreme court. But more broadly, the firestorm over Justice Ginsburg’s replacement is a reminder of how the modern supreme court has too much power in the first place. It is critical that our democracy reform agenda also consider how to reform the judiciary."

...deleted reference to propaganda rag...
Click to expand...
The United States is not and never was a democracy. There are currently no democracies anywhere in the world. The United States is a federated republic.
 
Flush said:
Abortion was legal under different circumstances in 20 states before Roe.
Click to expand...

Prior to Roe v.Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

And IMO, the states should be the deciding authority.
 
These right wing extremist on the so-called Supreme Court, among whom were involved in the treasonous act of facilitating the un Constitutional act of acquitting tRump at the impeachment trial despite damning evidence that justified a conviction and the act of obstructing witness testimony, indicates that these hacked in extremist at SCOTUS, especially that unqualified and perjuring creep Kavanaugh apparently think these band of un American extremist can do the job that foreign enemies want to happen at destroy Democracy from within and trampling all over U.S. Constitutional law, the civil liberties of society and anything else of a core value of America and civilized nature. Yet, this is not the first time Democracy has come under attack among, in particular, the enemy from within as society has the right to know, see and focus on the true enemy of Democracy and their own lives from within.
 
saltydancin said:
123087370_10220281627523204_666214322353415431_n.jpg
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Flush said:
Republicans have had 47 years to do something about Roe and they have not even tried even they they controlled the White House and Congress.
Click to expand...

Is that so?

The idea that the Republican Party doesn’t really want to repeal Roe v. Wade rests on Supreme Court decisions that were the product less of political scheming and more of happenstance and luck.

Roe was in serious jeopardy as early as the late ’80s, as the Reagan administration took the position that Roe should be overruled and states passed envelope-pushing statutes to generate test cases. In 1989, the Court issued a ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which considered a Missouri law that defined life as beginning at conception and declared that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”

But Roe survived the first major attempt to dismantle it. Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who dissented in Roe) tried to assemble a coalition for effectively ending Roe but fell one vote short. The result was an opinion that expressed hostility to Roe without changing the legal status quo.

The roadblock was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who in a concurrence insisted that the Missouri statute did not require the Court to consider whether Roe was correctly decided because the “fetal personhood” language did not have concrete legal meaning.

Roe survived, but the threat was clear. “For today, the women of this nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies,” Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe’s author, famously wrote in his dissent. “But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.”

By 1991, the Court’s two liberal lions, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were gone, replaced by nominees of President George H.W. Bush. Combined with the four apparent anti-Roe votes in Webster, this seemed to make overturning Roe a question of “when,” not “if.”

The vehicle was the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The case involved a Pennsylvania statute that imposed several restrictions on abortion that the Court’s previous applications of Roe had deemed unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the challenge to the Pennsylvania’s statute in front of the Court, essentially assumed that Roe was doomed and largely dedicated her argument to urging the Court to directly face the question of whether Roe was still good law, rather than continuing to dodge the question as it had in Webster.

But the expected ruling didn’t happen. After initially voting in conference to overrule Roe, Justice Anthony Kennedy ended up collaborating with fellow Republican nominees Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter to craft a compromise upholding Roe.

The essential holding of Roe — that the 14th Amendment protects the right to choose to have an abortion prior to fetal viability — was explicitly reaffirmed. But Roe’s “trimester framework,” which forbade virtually any regulation of first-trimester abortions, would be replaced with the “undue burden” test O’Connor had long advocated.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/15/18623073/roe-wade-abortion-georgia-alabama-supreme-court
 
Grokmaster said:
HOW VERY STALINIST OF YOU , COMRADE.

IF YOU CANNOT CONTROL/BLACKMAIL THEM, THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED.


GOOD LUCK AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OVER YOUR SOUR GRAPES...
Click to expand...
One thing for sure even SCOTUS is not too far above from being held accountable at coming under review when it comes to its relationship with U.S. Constitutional law, the well being of society and how it is expected to defend Democracy. Now if your tRump ass kissers want a lawless, un American and uncivilized court, do it on your own time and offsite of U.S. territory.
 
gemini104104 said:
This is suppose to be a Democracy and U.S. Constitutional law gives all citizens the right to speak freely and voice their complaints, concerns and justified arguments but of course your kind would prefer to stick your head in the dirt while your ass his pointed to the sky to get screwed by un American and uncivilized demagogues.
Click to expand...

nobody has kept you from voicing your concern..........and nothing has kept anyone from realizing your concerns are butt ugly stupid.....
 
gemini104104 said:
...So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet
Click to expand...
It's the LW reporter and his friend, cofounder of Vox, who are asking to abolish SCOTUS. The Harvard law professor only advises 18 year term limits, which is reasonable whereas abolishing SCOTUS is a wackadoodle idea.

Mark Tushnet
If you look at the overall course of US Supreme Court history, the description that you’ve offered is basically correct. But there are exceptions, as there always are, to that kind of generalization. One is the relatively brief Warren Court era, which still occupies the imagination of many people who think about the Constitution.

We’ve had the Brown v. Board of Education decision and Roe v. Wade, and then, more recently, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage — and all of these decisions were empowering for different segments of the population.

The big question is whether the gains from those kinds of protections of minority interests are substantial enough to outweigh the Court’s interference with legislation on behalf of the most powerful elements of our society. If you’re focused on many recent decisions, like Citizens United, the Court certainly seems to be favoring corporate power, but the picture is less clear when you step back and evaluate it over a much longer period of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top