Since they are lifetime appointments, does that mean they don't loose it if they get convicted of a crime? Could we see Trump and Thomas both in prison serving as president and SCOTUS judge?
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
339 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2942 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Shatter their kneecaps? Oh wait, I mean "vote". I always get those two mixed up.
Both! Do both!
I hate having that awkward conversation after confusing the two
My neice is an actress and before a performance I always tell her I hopes she shatters her kneecaps... you know, for luck
Add 4
All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.
- Matt Bruenig
I think it's not that simple. In other countries, there is no written constitution or the constitution is merely aspirational, like our Declaration of Independence.
In the US, the Constitution is considered legally binding. The 13th Amendment doesn't discourage slavery, it prohibits it. And if you think the Constitution should be legally binding, then Marbury is inescapable.
In other countries, there is no written constitution or the constitution is merely aspirational
What specific country are you referring to? It's hard to find one without a constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions
the Constitution is considered legally binding
I don't believe anyone is disputing that the constitution is a legal document. Is that what you think Marbury is about?
Orher countries, the ones that dont have one, obviously
Sorry, I missed this part earlier:
Is that what you think Marbury is about?
In part, yes. But it's also a question of priority.
If Congress passed a law today that contradicted a law passed a hundred years ago, then the law passed today would replace the older law.
But what about the Constitution? Suppose Congress passed a law that said "Henceforth, Congress can make a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Can a new law replace the Constitution, just as it replaces other older laws?
If the answer is "no" then Marbury is inescapable. Because if a law cannot replace the Constitution, then courts cannot enforce laws that they believe would violate the Constitution.
Marbury is about judicial review.
It's interesting to see these kinds of ideas. Can't help but feel it's reactionary and superficially "anti-government" without looking at other deeper issues.
What is "law" without judicial enforcement? If you don't have constitutional law, then a big pile of power balancing is thrown out, so you have to make sure you want that. That the Court is by far the least democratic institution is pretty obvious (but to be fair, in a two-party system, I'm not sure how much "democracy" there really is to start off with). But it's also the least worrisome if you care about individual's rights/freedoms, which is part of the reason why it's special status makes sense: it relies entirely on cooperation from everyone else.
So, why abolish its power to enforce the constitution? Because it's unreliably politicised? Then I think that might be the underlying issue.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes.
And judicial review is nothing more than the assumption that the Constitution takes precedence over other laws.
Nope.
Ok, if a law contradicts the Constitution then should a judge follow the law or the Constitution?
The constitution in the US, like most countries, doesn't grant a judiciary ultimate power over interpreting its laws.
You didn't answer the question.
If a law contradicts the Constitution, should a judge follow the law or the Constitution?
If it helps, you may assume the law explicitly states that the judge should definitely follow the law, and ignore the Constitution. Let's take the previous example of a new law by Congress:
Henceforth Congress can abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and this law must be obeyed by judges regardless of what the First Amendment says
Ok, should a judge follow that or the First Amendment?
The judge will make a judgment that reflects their ideology. Whether that overrides the judgment of the people, congress, or another leader, is a political tug of war. One that the US constitution says nothing about.
Ok, yeah, judges abuse their power like everyone else.
The question is, what is a judge supposed to do if a law contradicts the Constitution?
If your answer is that the judge is supposed to follow the Constitution, even if it requires ignoring a new law, then you have just re-invented judicial review.
The UK, for starters.
Yes, the UK is an exception. Most countries have a codified constitution.
Yes, and most countries have judicial review.
A moment ago you didn't know that most countries have constitutions. Now you know all about judicial review?
What are you talking about?
Context is everything. OP wrote this:
the kind of power top courts have in other countries.
And I responded that in those other countries, the constitution doesn't exist or is not the supreme law of the land.
Which is it? Most countries don't have a constitution, or most have judicial review?
Most countries have a constitution that acts as a supreme law and have judicial review.
As the OP suggested some countries don't have judicial review, but they either have no constitution or it is not the supreme law.
They made their decision, let them enforce it.
- Andrew Jackson before he did a genocide against Court orders.
Not a great pull of a quote there.
You have it backwards. The government cannot enforce laws without assistance from the judiciary.
For example, Congress once passed a law outlawing flag burning. The SCOTUS decided that was unconstitutional. But suppose everyone had decided to ignore that decision.
So someone is arrested for flag burning... and the case is immediately dismissed by a judge.
So the government decides to tax flag-burners instead. Someone refuses to pay that tax, the government sues ... and the case is immediately dismissed by a judge.
Pretty much everything the government does to "enforce" their will can be challenged, and challenges always end up before a judge. If the judge decides a law is unconstitutional, then the government will lose every case.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Just replace OP with "corrupt supreme Court justices"
Vote Biden. Then vote D again in '28, '32, '36, and '40.
Flip the House. Widen the lead in the Senate.
Thomas is 75, Alito is 74, if they don't get replaced between 24 and 28, it's virtually assured they'll be out between 28 and 32.
The problem then becomes the next two oldest justices, Roberts and Sotomayor, so we have to hold the Presidency through probably 2040.
The last time a single party held the presidency for more than 12 years was when FDR won 4 times. Prior to that it was civil war reconstruction.
Keeping the white house from 2020-2040 would be the longest single party streak without one president occupying the office more than 8 years. 3 consecutive Democrats would need to win. Ignoring the Democratic Republican steak at the beginning of the 19th century, because at one point everyone ran as a democratic Republican regardless.
My point is, what's plan b?
My fear is Biden wins in '24, dies in office, we get President Harris, who is the party pick in '28 and she loses terribly because nobody likes her.
If Thomas and Alito make it to '28, they step down to assure a Republican replaces their seats.
So we get Republicans in 28 and 32, maintaining the 6-3 split, then Roberts and Sotomayor are out, eliminating the reliable swing vote (Roberts) and leaving the court with a 7-2 majority.
100% agree. We need to stop autopicking the next candidate just because they were VP. I don't hate her, but she hasn't done anything to stake a claim for the next seat.
load more comments
(5 replies)
!remindme
load more comments
(2 replies)
What if we dust flyover states with MDMA?
Fuck that flyover states. Send me some of that shit. Dust the capital.
No. MDMA is for real voters.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Bold of you to assume that we're not already partying constantly.
Alright maybe just the suburbs
Yea absolutely, but also off-year elections are important too! We elect the House every 2year, the senate every 6, and there’s tons of local issues on the ballot every year.
Absolutely this. This is why Dems have had control of all 3 houses (house of reps, Senate, presidency) for only 4 years of the last 24 years. Voters don't show up and then GOP gets one of them. We've all seen what happens when it's president and not Senate - the GOP Senate blocked Obama's supreme Court Justice.
load more comments
(10 replies)