The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[Flash]

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

True. And before that the nuclear option was discussed because the Democrats were blocking Bush's nominations when they increased the number of filibusters.

You seem to be trying to make this about parties. They both use the same methods to accomplish their goals--they are for filibusters and naming SC picks in an election year and against those same things when it hurts their interests. That is the point of elections--to gain power to achieve your agenda. Neither party holds any kind of moral or ethical advantage over the other when it comes to fighting for their side.

 

[Flash]

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......

Marbury v. Madison the court struck down a law attempting to add to the SC original jurisdiction to include a writ of mandamus. The SC, in order to get around a losing situation, declared Congress does not have that power giving itself the power of judicial review to declare something unconstitutional.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Marbury v. Madison the court struck down a law attempting to add to the SC original jurisdiction to include a writ of mandamus. The SC, in order to get around a losing situation, declared Congress does not have that power giving itself the power of judicial review to declare something unconstitutional.

2nd case we studied in Constitutional Law 101........the court claimed for itself the power to declare any act of Congress or state law unconstitutional.....they've kept that power ever since........if Congress attempted to restrict that power the SC would declare that restriction to be unconstitutional........

interesting side note....as I recall Barret in her questioning, distinguished a case she was asked about as NOT being settled law, contrasting it with the example of Marbury v Madison, "which would NEVER be overturned by any court of law"........

 

[Flash]

2nd case we studied in Constitutional Law 101........the court claimed for itself the power to declare any act of Congress or state law unconstitutional.....they've kept that power ever since........if Congress attempted to restrict that power the SC would declare that restriction to be unconstitutional........

interesting side note....as I recall Barret in her questioning, distinguished a case she was asked about as NOT being settled law, contrasting it with the example of Marbury v Madison, "which would NEVER be overturned by any court of law"........

It was an interesting way to get out of a bad situation. If the SC ruled Madison did not have to give Marbury his commission it would make the SC look powerless. If they ruled Madison had to deliver the commission Jefferson would just tell him not to do it and they still looked powerless. So giving themselves the power of judicial review cemented their power for history.

 

[In the Night]

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.

Nope. Congress does not have the authority to designate what cases the supreme court will hear.

 

[In the Night]

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

Fake news.

 

[In the Night]

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

The Senate conducted a simple vote. ACB was confirmed. You do not get to overrule the Senate or the President. You are not the king.

 

[Flash]

Nope. Congress does not have the authority to designate what cases the supreme court will hear.

The Constitution designates the cases they will hear under its original jurisdiction. Other cases come under its appellate jurisdiction which can be regulated by Congress.

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

When bussing was a controversial issue some in Congress considered taking away the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear bussing cases but they did not have the votes.

 

[In the Night]

Only in your world.

The Constitution is not just in my world. Denial of the Constitution.

We both know the federal courts interpret the Constitution

They do not have authority to. See Article III.

and have made many changes in its meaning

They do not have the authority to. See Article III.

and operation since 1789 including many of the founders who probably were aware of what they created.

Denial of history.

States have no power to change the Constitution without corresponding federal action.

Nope. States need no federal action to change the Constitution. They can even destroy it, and thus dissolve the federal government completely. The States own the Constitution, not the agent created by that Constitution.
See Article V.

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.

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy. Denial of the Constitution of the United States. Denial of history. Presentism fallacy.

 

[Flash]

Fake news.

Events that actually happened are not "fake" except to those who can't accept the reality.

 

[Flash]

Nope. States need no federal action to change the Constitution. They can even destroy it, and thus dissolve the federal government completely. The States own the Constitution, not the agent created by that Constitution.

Denial of history
Denial of reality
Denial of the Constitution
Denial of law

 

[In the Night]

The Constitution designates the cases they will hear under its original jurisdiction. Other cases come under its appellate jurisdiction which can be regulated by Congress.

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

When bussing was a controversial issue some in Congress considered taking away the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear bussing cases but they did not have the votes.

Congress does not have authority to designate who will ride what bus. Congress cannot change what cases the supreme court will hear.
Denial of the Constitution. Semantics fallacy.

 

[In the Night]

Events that actually happened are not "fake" except to those who can't accept the reality.

The didn't happen. Fake news. False authority fallacy. Denial of history.

 

[In the Night]

Denial of history
Denial of reality
Denial of the Constitution
Denial of law

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

 

[In the Night]

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 did answer the question. RQAA.

 

[In the Night]

When can we expect you to have an uprising?

Already happening in one fashion or another. States have, for example, decided to ignore the unconstitutional laws the federal government passed concerning some recreational drugs. I am must me. I cannot override my State's authority concerning the Constitution.

 

[In the Night]

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

Contexomy fallacy. TDS.

 

[In the Night]

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

The minority cast their vote. They lost. Done.

 

[In the Night]

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

RQAA. Denial of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[In the Night]

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.

A vote is not a filibuster.