The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

archives said:
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
Click to expand...

A vote is not a filibuster.
 
Into the Night said:
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Click to expand...

But my history and constitutional law is correct. Yours is completely made up claiming only the states can change the Constitution.

There is no interpretation of history, law, or the Constitution which fits your claims.
 
Into the Night said:
The didn't happen. Fake news. False authority fallacy. Denial of history.
Click to expand...

It is easy to check to see if AZ and GA increased its number of judges on the state supreme court.

"Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh."

"Governor Nathan Deal's push to expand the Georgia Supreme Court won final approval Tuesday from the state Senate, when members passed a bill to expand the court by two justices."

Wow. That was easy to prove "fake" news actually happened. The governments of AZ and GA are not "false authorities."
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you aren't rising up.
 
archives said:
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
Click to expand...

Each of the Democrat members had a vote and each on the Judiciary Committee had a chance to ask questions. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee acted like a bunch of cowards by staying home the day the committee voted. What they showed is when things weren't done the way those spoiled brats wanted, they cried and whined.

You're confusing the number of votes it takes to confirm with the number of votes it takes to end debate in order to take the confirmation vote. There have been Justices confirmed by barely over a majority. There have been Justices confirmed by a unanimous vote. In either case, it only took a majority to confirm.

Interesting that you call it Mitch's rule yet ignore that Harry Reid, when it came to executive branch appoints and federal judiciary appointment other than Supreme Court changed the rules to a simple majority when Democrats controlled the Senate. Including Supreme court nominations to that is something you don't like not because you have a problem with the concept but because of Republicans controlling the Senate and Trump getting to appoint 3 Justices rather than Hillary.
 
Flash said:
But my history and constitutional law is correct. Yours is completely made up claiming only the states can change the Constitution.

There is no interpretation of history, law, or the Constitution which fits your claims.
Click to expand...

You deny both history and the Constitution. The Constitution speaks for itself.
 
Flash said:
It is easy to check to see if AZ and GA increased its number of judges on the state supreme court.

"Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh."

"Governor Nathan Deal's push to expand the Georgia Supreme Court won final approval Tuesday from the state Senate, when members passed a bill to expand the court by two justices."

Wow. That was easy to prove "fake" news actually happened. The governments of AZ and GA are not "false authorities."
Click to expand...

They can do what they want with their own courts, according to their own constitutions. They cannot change the number of judges on the supreme court.
 
The Constitution is in desperate need of a rewrite. 18th century thinking cements 18th century thinking.
 
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 who have failed America.

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...

giphy.gif
 
We are supposed to have 3 equal branches. Trump is taking over the Supremes. He already took over the federal judges. If the Supremes are weakened, Trump will be strengthened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top