The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[In the Night]

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

To change the number of justices on the supreme court you have to get both houses to pass the bill, and that bill has to be signed by the President.

 

[CFM]

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

When have Republicans proposed packing the Courts?

What happens in a few States cannot be applied as a similar concept with the U.S. as a whole.

 

[In the Night]

If the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution what do they do?

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I am not going to repeat it here.

 

[Damocles]

demmycrats on a roll.......next they'll want to cancel the executive branch and the senate......if you can't beat em, eliminate em......

We should eliminate the vote, just have some NYT polls done and declare a victor to appoint as Dear Leader regardless of the vote. Polling done by "news" sources should also be the SCOTUS replacement. Dear Leader should just announce new laws, no need for a Legislature elected by those idiot citizens who elected people they don't think should be elected. All these changes will also eliminate that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way of their grip on total power.

 

[archives]

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

True, but until Mitch stepped in, Supreme Court Justice hearings were still subject to closure/filibuster, meaning the nominee weren't confirmed on a strict majority vote, the minority had a say, consequently, overt ideologues nor political hacks were appointed as we have seen during the Trump era

 

[CFM]

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.

I know. The Constitution lists them not Congress.

The Constitution, not Congress, also lists when the Court has appellate jurisdiction.

 

[Flash]

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.

Only in your world. We both know the federal courts interpret the Constitution and have made many changes in its meaning and operation since 1789 including many of the founders who probably were aware of what they created.

States have no power to change the Constitution without corresponding federal action. Otherwise, it completely negates the entire purpose of the Constitution to create a central government with increased power over that relatively weak document created under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[archives]

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I am not going to repeat it here.

In other words, you can't answer the question, see that often from posters caught in an error, usually it is "go Google it," thanks

 

[CFM]

True, but until Mitch stepped in, Supreme Court Justice hearings were still subject to closure/filibuster, meaning the nominee weren't confirmed on a strict majority vote, the minority had a say, consequently, overt ideologues nor political hacks were appointed as we have seen during the Trump era

Hey dipshit, the minority party did have a say. In fact, with Barrett, they had 47 says. What you don't like is the majority party has 52 says of an opposite opinion.

 

[CFM]

In other words, you can't answer the question, see that often from posters caught in an error, usually it is "go Google it," thanks

I don't have to Google Article III of the Constitution. Why do you?

 

[CFM]

Which is to say the supreme court judges that made this decision are rogue government and can be ignored.

When can we expect you to have an uprising?

 

[archives]

We should eliminate the vote, just have some NYT polls done and declare a victor to appoint as Dear Leader regardless of the vote. Polling done by "news" sources should also be the SCOTUS replacement. Dear Leader should just announce new laws, no need for a Legislature elected by those idiot citizens who elected people they don't think should be elected. All these changes will also eliminate that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way of their grip on total power.

We all know one guy who would eagerly accept the role of "Dear Leader," in fact, he has already told Americans erroneously that he "can do whatever he wants"

And as I always say, it is often comical how conservatives always tell us they love the Constitution, if we all just followed the Constitution, but in reality they have a shallow understanding of what the Constitution is and what is in it

 

[archives]

Hey dipshit, the minority party did have a say. In fact, with Barrett, they had 47 says. What you don't like is the majority party has 52 says of an opposite opinion.

Wrong, shocking, the minority had zero input, the Democrats could have stayed home through out the process and it wouldn't have made a difference, it is called majority rule, Mitch's rule, not the way Supreme Court Justices have been chosen in the past

 

[archives]

I don't have to Google Article III of the Constitution. Why do you?

Nor do I, I was just asking "nightingale" to explain to us why he thinks the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution, which clearly he could not

 

[Flash]

True, but until Mitch stepped in, Supreme Court Justice hearings were still subject to closure/filibuster, meaning the nominee weren't confirmed on a strict majority vote, the minority had a say, consequently, overt ideologues nor political hacks were appointed as we have seen during the Trump era

We can thank Harry Reid for first using the nuclear option for federal judges; it was only a matter of time before one party extended it to the Supreme Court.

The minority still have a say, they just don't get to overrule the majority. That is one reason the Democrats are discussing eliminating the filibuster entirely.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

no.....once more, Congress cannot restrict or revoke the court's appellate powers......that is what Congress attempted to do and were prevented from doing in Marbury v Madison.......Congress has specifically EXPANDED the court's authority......they have never restricted it and certainly cannot revoke it......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The supreme court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution. Only the States can do that.

please stop being an idiot......

 

[Bourbon]

5 to 3 LOSS for the GOP and Yo Bitch Sat this one out ....

 

[archives]

We can thank Harry Reid for first using the nuclear option for federal judges; it was only a matter of time before one party extended it to the Supreme Court.

The minority still have a say, they just don't get to overrule the majority. That is one reason the Democrats are discussing eliminating the filibuster entirely.

Well, if you want to take the route, it was Mitch, just like he did with Garland, who made it a given practice to automatically filibuster every one of Obama's judicial nominees, when the backlog grew extensive, Reid went that option, but he purposely did not extend it to cover Supreme Court Justices

The minority has zero input, Mitch could have gotten Sean Hannity on the Court if he wanted to, with closure the minority can force a sixty vote requirement, eliminating the nomination of an overt ideologue or partisan hack

 

[Rune]

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.

Wrong