853
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
853 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2377 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
I know this is mostly for show, but how strong is the Constitutional argument being made? I can't think of another example of Congress attempting to limit the authority of the Supreme Court via legislation. Can it be done at all without triggering a Constitutional crisis?
Yes. The supreme court exists to interpret unclear parts of legislation. If you make a constitutional amendment that says "you cannot do X", it is outside of their authority to say "actually, you can do X". Not that that's stopped them before...
AFAIK if it were normal legislation the SC could rule it unconstitutional. It would have to be a proper constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 congress ratifying and ~~unanimous~~ 75% State support in order to render the SC powerless to F with it. Even then, SC could probably F with its interpretation to the point it is toothless. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I hope I am.
Edit: 75% State support (thanks for not letting me down)
Not unanimous state support, 75%
Which is still basically impossible right now
3/4s of states need to ratify. So 38 state legislatures need to agree.
If you look into the history of the court, most of the Supreme Courts power today is something it's just been "allowed" to claim and has been institutionalized over time. Knocking them down a peg is doable on paper, it would just be crazy contentious since the GOP likes the current status quo.
The constitution doesn't even give the supreme court the power to declare things unconstitutional. They just decided to do that early on and everyone went along with it.
Suppose the court does declare such a law unconstitutional. Imagine how it would look. Yes, such a law might not be the end of things, but if it was declared unconstitutional it would be a clear call for hobbling the court, because it would demonstrate they're corrupt.
I think all the corruption already demonstrate that.
The SC is fully captured by the far right, they're already throwing away pieces of democracy to save trump, they're past caring about open corruption.
You don't need to convince me. I'm talking about gathering critical support for something like a constitutional amendment. Nothing wrong with passing a bill first. Amendments are hard.
It would add further pressure on top of all the previous examples of open corruption, for sure.
Remember you need two thirds of both chambers to pass an amendment, followed by three fourths of states. In our current environment that's nearly impossible. We should be throwing everything at the wall, and if one thing is rejected, that may sway people who haven't been tuned in, which could be crucial in applying further action.
There's also value in doing fucking anything. Why should people support a party that won't fight for what's important? I refuse to just complain, or to accept hopelessness. I expect that something will be done, and I'm going to vote and act accordingly.
The courts are only supposed to interpret laws, not make them. Every time Congress passes a new law (assuming it's constitutional) they limit the power of the courts by constraining the interpretations the courts can make. Saying the President is not above the law doesn't limit the power of the courts in any way that isn't totally routine.