The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

No, it isn't. To see what their job is, read Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The cannot interpret or change the Constitution.
The Constitution is the final reference on the Constitution.
The supreme court does not have authority to change the constitution or to usurp authority it doesn't have.

Since it's a Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court that gives standing to thieving absentee voting ballots arsonists just as it's KKK Federal Lynching churchstates confiscate technology to keep individuals education advances in math hindered....
 
If Congress did their frickin' job, there would be no need to reduce the powers of the executive branch.

Those crooks on Capital Hill national religion malfeasance diatribe one nation under God with equal justice under law granted standing by SCOTUS to maintain a Christian Nation with election fixing where churchstate fiefdoms lynching enforcement of thieving absentee voting ballots arsonists is no different from Christiananality pedophilia stealing calculators depriving education as their master race thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament arsonists "serve the Pope or die" from Islam "death to the infidels" master plan.
 
Biden and congress can and should add members to the Supremes. Trump/McConnell deliberately cheated to get a biased , controllable court. Congress can water the crazies down.
 
Biden and congress can and should add members to the Supremes. Trump/McConnell deliberately cheated to get a biased , controllable court. Congress can water the crazies down.

As if those crooks on Capital Hill Christiananality pedophilia Klues Klucks duh Klans game of "man is God" needs more than stealing calculators from a teenager attending school working in business for SCOTUS Nazi economics master plan of fixing elections years in advance thru stealing absentee voting ballots for business as usual where damages couldn't be calculated in those national religion of "serve the Pope or die" by Islam "death to the infidels" results.
 
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

What "UnAmerican" opinion was issued by the Supreme Court?
 
Scalia was the first Textualist to become a Supreme Court Justice. He did not throw the court into corruption or even off balance.

I think one textualist on the bench is not a problem. I think even texualists have valuable input to a point.

So let it be. Amy will work out fine!

She has to live with her own decisions, and I also believe she is a good person.

STOP THE PARANOIA AND JUST WAIT YOUR TURN FOR THE NEXT ADDITION TO THE COURT!

PATIENCE EVERYONE!
 
What "UnAmerican" opinion was issued by the Supreme Court?

While the supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court of one nation under God with equal justice under law diatribe opinion in granting standing for Nazi economics business of thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists opinion of fabricated misnomer immaculate drug conceptions is jurisprudence to maintain their master race Christiananality pedophilia organized crime monopoly patriot act.
 
See the various AUMFs, section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and numerous other acts congress has passed enabling the President to act on his own.

Yes--Congress has delegated much of its authority to the president: trade agreements, emergency actions, etc.
 
Yes--Congress has delegated much of its authority to the president: trade agreements, emergency actions, etc.

No doubt those crooks on Capital Hill delegated SCOTUS Bicentennial authority to grant standing for thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists with fabricated misnomer immaculate drug conceptions & yet again for those burning Bush's Arab "death to the infidels" health care plan lynching enforcement Christian Nation patriot act practice of baptize thine eyes of one of Eisenhower's WW II Pentagon staff sergeants Freudian slip as to what 9/11 was to be.....
 
Yes--Congress has delegated much of its authority to the president: trade agreements, emergency actions, etc.

Congress has no authority over trade agreements. The President has that authority. He also has the authority to handle several emergency actions. See articles I and II of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Congress has no authority over trade agreements. The President has that authority. He also has the authority to handle several emergency actions. See articles I and II of the Constitution of the United States.

The president was delegated those powers by Congress and those laws are what is cited by the president when exercising those powers.

What constitutional provision(s) give the president authority over trade (other than negotiating treaties)?

"The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to impose and collect taxes,tariffs,duties, and the like, and to regulate international commerce. While the Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate international agreements, it assigns him no specific power over international commerce and trade.Through legislation,however, Congress may delegate some of its power to the President, such as the power to modify tariffs under certain circumstances.Thus, because the President does not possess express constitutional authority to modify tariffs, he must find authority for tariff-related action in statute."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44707.pdf
 
The president was delegated those powers by Congress and those laws are what is cited by the president when exercising those powers.

What constitutional provision(s) give the president authority over trade (other than negotiating treaties)?

"The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to impose and collect taxes,tariffs,duties, and the like, and to regulate international commerce. While the Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate international agreements, it assigns him no specific power over international commerce and trade.Through legislation,however, Congress may delegate some of its power to the President, such as the power to modify tariffs under certain circumstances.Thus, because the President does not possess express constitutional authority to modify tariffs, he must find authority for tariff-related action in statute."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44707.pdf

But it takes Congress approval to pass the yearly budget bill as to what the monies are to be allocated & items to be spent on.
 
But it takes Congress approval to pass the yearly budget bill as to what the monies are to be allocated & items to be spent on.

Many of those items do not require specific new spending (imposing tariffs, making trade deals). The legislation delegating those powers often includes any necessary funding.
 
Back
Top