The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

The OP referred to recent conservative appointments to the court causing the (overblown) problems.

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. About the only thing they could do is propose and push for a constitutional amendment which they have not done. They get more mileage by being anti-abortion than actually stopping abortion.

Abortion was legal under different circumstances in 20 states before Roe.

It was done at the level of government in which the Constitution indicates things like that should be done.

While a Republican Congress could propose such an amendment, there is no way on earth in the political climate we've had for years that it would ever get past being anything but a proposal. The only way Roe will ever be overturned, as it's not going to happen with an amendment, is for a case involving abortion to come to the Court. The Court doesn't go looking for cases to hear. Cases are brought to them and they decide which ones they want to hear.
 
The abysmal ignorance displayed by the likes of Nerdberg explains a lot, doesn't it?

It's pretty typical. They just repeat the Democrat chants and mantras over and over without any meaning, deny anything like science or mathematics or history, then call people names when they can't form an argument of their own.

Yup. It's ignorance. It's illiteracy.
 
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.

Correct. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the federal government this authority. The supreme court exceeded it's authority yet again, changing the Constitution.
 
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
The Senate has the right to conduct the trial. Only the Senate. Not you. Not the supreme court. You do not get to override the Senate. You are not the king. Following the Constitution is not treason.
despite damning evidence that justified a conviction
None given. That's why the Senate threw it out.
and the act of obstructing witness testimony,
The House does not have subpoena authority. Only the court does. Trump does not have to witness against himself and he doesn't have to allow the House to usurp the authority of the President. See the Constitution of the United States, Articles I and II.
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
Kavanaugh is not destroying anything. The United States is and never was a democracy. It is a federated republic.
and trampling all over U.S. Constitutional law,
You are denying the Constitution of the United States. It is YOU that is advocating trampling all over U.S. Constitutional law. Inversion fallacy.
the civil liberties of society
Buzzword fallacy.
and anything else of a core value of America and civilized nature.
Buzzword fallacies. You deny the Constitution of the United States.
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.
The U.S. is not a democracy. It never was.
Neither Trump nor the Senate nor Kavanaugh has violated anything in the Constitution of the United States.

Sour grapes. Denial of the Constitution. TDS.
 
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.

SCOTUS must operate UNDER the Constitution. It has NO authority OVER it. See Article III.

Denial of the Constitution. Sour grapes. TDS.
 
the article you sourced confirms that Congress can legislate which cases the SC must hear. and gives examples.........show me something which says congress can PREVENT the court from hearing something.....

Obviously, they can't. They don't have authority to pass any law concerning abortion either.
 
It was done at the level of government in which the Constitution indicates things like that should be done.

While a Republican Congress could propose such an amendment, there is no way on earth in the political climate we've had for years that it would ever get past being anything but a proposal. The only way Roe will ever be overturned, as it's not going to happen with an amendment, is for a case involving abortion to come to the Court. The Court doesn't go looking for cases to hear. Cases are brought to them and they decide which ones they want to hear.

The court had no authority to overrule State authority on abortion in the first place.
 
One can be in a state of delusional denial all they want but reality is there and it speaks volumes when it comes to a right wing extremist packed SCOTUS that is a threat on Democracy and U.S. Constitutional law:

The Supreme Court, gerrymandering, and the Republican turn against democracy
A bigger threat to American democracy than Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court’s Thursday morning ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause amounts to a blank check for partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”

What this means, in practice, is that local authorities get to decide on the shape of House and state legislative districts. Parties that control statehouses will be freer to not only cement their own hold on power but ensure that their party sends more representatives to Washington as well.

While Republicans and Democrats both gerrymander, there is no doubt that Republicans do it more and more shamelessly. North Carolina Rep. David Lewis, who helped draw one of the maps at issue in Rucho, was admirably honest about his motives in a 2016 statehouse speech.

“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” he explained. “So I drew this map in a way to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...me-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy

Partisan gerrymandering has always been constitutional--it is nothing new. The Constitution clearly gives the function to a political body--the state legislatures--that make political decisions. In the 1960s Democrats refused to redistrict leaving districts very uneven in population. You can find many more examples of actions being undemocratic in past history than today.
 
Start with Citizens United, Moron.

That is stupid. Nothing happens under Citizens United that was not happening before--they simply used independent spending to achieve the same goals, gave a "bonus" to employees to contribute to candidates, lend media specialists to campaigns, etc. Attributing any perceived evil to one court decision is simple-minded thinking.
 
Obviously, they can't. They don't have authority to pass any law concerning abortion either.

Congress can set the court's jurisdiction of what type of cases each court can hear. If they have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is basically preventing them from hearing that category of cases.
 
It was done at the level of government in which the Constitution indicates things like that should be done.

While a Republican Congress could propose such an amendment, there is no way on earth in the political climate we've had for years that it would ever get past being anything but a proposal. The only way Roe will ever be overturned, as it's not going to happen with an amendment, is for a case involving abortion to come to the Court. The Court doesn't go looking for cases to hear. Cases are brought to them and they decide which ones they want to hear.

I agree they could never get an amendment passed limiting abortion. That makes abortion a phony issue for elections since neither party can or will do anything about it.
 
gosh, I wonder if stripping the court of its ability to overturn laws that are unconstitutional would be unconstitutional........this poses a conundrum for the demmycrats, since the SC would probably overturn the very law that the House passed to strip the court of its power to overturn unconstitutional laws........

The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate the Federal Courts.

Article III.
 
Congress can set the court's jurisdiction of what type of cases each court can hear. If they have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is basically preventing them from hearing that category of cases.

will the demmycrats convince the SC that Marbury v Madison is wrong?.......
 
The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate the Federal Courts.

Article III.

/shrugs......Marbury v Madison says you're a fuckwitted lib'rul.......

Marbury v. Madison remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[2] It established American judges' authority to review the constitutionality of Congress's legislative acts,[2] and to this day the Supreme Court's power to review the constitutionality of American laws at both the federal and state level "is generally rested upon the epic decision of Marbury v. Madison."[63]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#:~:text=Marbury%20v.%20Madison%2C%205%20U.S.,the%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United
 
I agree they could never get an amendment passed limiting abortion. That makes abortion a phony issue for elections since neither party can or will do anything about it.

Theoretically, it could happen but not in today's realistic political climate.
 

Yes, however, Article III establishes that Congress can regulate federal courts, including the size of the Supreme Court. Which has been changed at least 7 times. Congress also has the power to revoke SCOTUS' appellate powers, effectively telling them what cases they can and cannot hear.
 
Back
Top