The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

As long as those districts are contiguous, approximately the same population, and don't discriminate based on race, the state legislature of a state is free to draw them how they please.

It was the uneven districts that brought about Wesbury v. Sanders (requirement that US House districts be the same as possible in population and Reynolds v. Sims (requirement that state legislative districts be the same as possible in population).
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congress can't change the Constitution. They cannot set the supreme court's jurisdiction or determine what cases they will hear. See Articles II and III.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Democrats routinely ignore the Constitution of the United States. The United States is not a democracy and never was.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

The federal government has no authority on abortion. The States do.
 
LV426 said:
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.
Click to expand...

All seven times occurred within 80 years of the ratification of the Constitution. The only reason you left wing pussies want to change it now is because you aren't adult enough to accept losing.

Congress cannot revoke the appellate powers. The Constitution granted appellate jurisdiction to the Court except in specific instances where original jurisdiction applies.

Suck it, boy. You lost.
 
Flash said:
Many of them interpreted "the health of the mother" very liberally. A few allowed it for any reason. If Roe was overturned I'm sure many more states would make it legal than it was in 1973.
Click to expand...

You don't get to speak for all of the people in the United States. You only get to speak for you. The federal government has no authority concerning abortion. That includes the supreme court. It does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
CFM said:
Theoretically, it could happen but not in today's realistic political climate.
Click to expand...

It is always difficult to get a 2/3 House and Senate vote and 3/4 of the states to agree; especially since a majority of Americans favor legal abortion under various circumstances.
 
Flash said:
It is always difficult to get a 2/3 House and Senate vote and 3/4 of the states to agree; especially since a majority of Americans favor legal abortion under various circumstances.
Click to expand...

That's why the distinction between theory and reality.
 
CFM said:
All seven times occurred within 80 years of the ratification of the Constitution. The only reason you left wing pussies want to change it now is because you aren't adult enough to accept losing.

Congress cannot revoke the appellate powers. The Constitution granted appellate jurisdiction to the Court except in specific instances where original jurisdiction applies.

Suck it, boy. You lost.
Click to expand...

But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around
 
CFM said:
Article III, Section 2 does that. It's clear when the Court has original and when it has appellate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

There are a very limited number of cases in which the SC has original jurisdiction under the Constitution. All other cases, original or appellate, are set by Congress.
 
LV426 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congress does not have authority to repeal appellate authority of the supreme court.
 
Flash said:
It is always difficult to get a 2/3 House and Senate vote and 3/4 of the states to agree; especially since a majority of Americans favor legal abortion under various circumstances.
Click to expand...

No constitutional amendment is necessary. The federal government does not have authority over abortions. The States do. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the States can do that.
 
archives said:
But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around
Click to expand...

Both parties are willing to "pack" the courts when it is in their interest.

"Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia have signed bills passed by GOP-dominated legislatures to expand the number of seats on their states’ respective high courts. In Iowa, the Republican governor gained greater leverage over the commission that names judicial nominees."

https://apnews.com/article/legislat...upreme-court-31f4996a200be4622361603aabf92302
 
archives said:
But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around
Click to expand...

Perhaps your forgot what has been dubbed the Biden Rule:

- Biden gave a long speech in June 1992 calling for then President George H.W. Bush to not proceed with a Supreme Court nomination should a vacancy occur, although there was none at the time. This speech would later be dubbed “The Biden rule.”

- In his speech, Biden made a case for both parties, and the White House and Senate, to work together on Supreme Court nominations.

- Biden didn’t appear to rule out a nomination after Election Day, stating that a “nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

The problem you left wing pussies had was when "what is good for one" was applied, you didn't like it. It came around and you whined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top