The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[artichoke]

Wait...enemies of the Constitution (Democrats) spent decades trying to illegally concentrate as much power as possible into the hands of a tiny group of un-elected, unaccountable judicial activists so they could work around the American people...and now the moment it all backfires and hands all that unconstitutional power to their opponents...NOW they finally see the need to return the courts to their original status intended by the Founders, as the "weakest" branch, with the least capacity to "injure and annoy" our rights, as Hamilton put it.

The Demagogue Party truly has zero shame.

[Flash]

It has been changed in the past. It was once 8 and another time 10. Congress can change it and has.

It was originally six.

I oppose changing the number because it would lead to each administration adding more to achieve a majority.

Democrats increased the number of filibusters to block Bush's judicial appointments and Republicans expanded that total. Democrats imposed the nuclear option on lower judicial appointments and Republicans expanded that to include the Supreme Court.

And they attempt to justify their actions by claiming "the other party did it first." Then they started the phony argument about whether to appoint a new justice in an election year. It has nothing to do with precedent or ethics or "proper" behavior.

[Into the Night]

The Constitution has been changed by both amendment

That is one way to change it. Only the States can change it.

and interpretation

The supreme court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

and that was not done just by the states.

Only the States can change the Constitution.

Therefore, the states obviously do not have the sole power to change the document.

They have sole power to change the document.

In your first statement above you say the states have never used their unilateral power to change constitutional interpretation. Now, you claim they have "done so occasionally."

Can't read again, can you? So far, the States have not formed a Constitutional convention to change the Constitution. States have sole power to change or interpret the Constitution.

The states changed nothing in the Constitution when they legalized recreational drugs. They simply exercised their police powers to make that decision for their state. It is still against federal law.

The federal government has no authority in this area. The States have simply claimed their own authority.

So, that doesn't apply and again proves the states have no power to unilaterally change the Constitution.

Only the States may change the Constitution.

What body interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy that applies to contraceptive use, abortion, sodomy?

The States.

[Into the Night]

Thank you for finally admitting I said setting the number of justices is a function of Congress.

You said otherwise. Now you say this. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Into the Night]

NO! Not at all Mr. KNOW NOTHING! Mr. Guesswork!

My job and everyone that worked in the World Wide Command Center jobs all went overseas to BANGALORE INDIA.

So you were not worth what they were paying you.

[Flash]

You said otherwise. Now you say this. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Nope. I gave you the frame where I made the statement. You, on the other hand, provide no factual information to support your claims.

[Into the Night]

It was originally six.

I oppose changing the number because it would lead to each administration adding more to achieve a majority.

Democrats increased the number of filibusters to block Bush's judicial appointments and Republicans expanded that total. Democrats imposed the nuclear option on lower judicial appointments and Republicans expanded that to include the Supreme Court.

And they attempt to justify their actions by claiming "the other party did it first." Then they started the phony argument about whether to appoint a new justice in an election year. It has nothing to do with precedent or ethics or "proper" behavior.

A filibuster is not a vote.

[Flash]

A filibuster is not a vote.

Very good. I didn't say it was a vote. I said "they increased the number of filibusters to block appointments." That means they required a 60 vote margin for confirmation by raising an objection. A filibuster no longer requires senators to actually take the floor and talk in order to block a vote.

Again, I never said it was a vote. ""they increased the number of filibusters to block appointments." You are delusional and see stuff that is not there.

[Flash]

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/2018/10/12/17950...t-mark-tushnet

It was never "neutral." Without judicial review there is nothing to block the power of the president or Congress from imposing excessive governmental power. Our freedoms would change whenever a new party took power.

[CFM]

Bulverism fallacy.

Hey, I agreed with you. What else do you want, boy?

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution has been changed by both amendment and interpretation and that was not done just by the states. Therefore, the states obviously do not have the sole power to change the document.


In your first statement above you say the states have never used their unilateral power to change constitutional interpretation. Now, you claim they have "done so occasionally."

The states changed nothing in the Constitution when they legalized recreational drugs. They simply exercised their police powers to make that decision for their state. It is still against federal law.

So, that doesn't apply and again proves the states have no power to unilaterally change the Constitution.

What body interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy that applies to contraceptive use, abortion, sodomy?

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

[Flash]

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

It is not based on a false premise because I never suggested something was legal just because the government did it. However, suggesting it is not constitutional because it does not fit the unorthodox and historically inaccurate view of the Constitution by SmarterthanYou (and Into the Night) fail to make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Debates at the constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, actions while in office by those involved in writing the document are the best evidence we have for understanding the Constitution (plus the words of the Constitution itself). Nowhere are the states given the exclusive power to change the Constitution.

Have you been willing defend the Constitution? How?

[SmarterthanYou]

Debates at the constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, actions while in office by those involved in writing the document are the best evidence we have for understanding the Constitution (plus the words of the Constitution itself). Nowhere are the states given the exclusive power to change the Constitution.

the constitution has two ways, constitutionally, of being amended. Congress can propose an Amendment and then let the states vote on it, OR, each state can put forth an Amendment and vote on it, letting 3/5ths pass it.

Have you been willing defend the Constitution? How?

I am a Marine...............so, yes. how about you?

[Flash]

the constitution has two ways, constitutionally, of being amended. Congress can propose an Amendment and then let the states vote on it, OR, each state can put forth an Amendment and vote on it, letting 3/5ths pass it.

You left out the federal role in the second method of proposing amendments. The Constitution says Congress shall call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments upon the application of 2/3 of the states.

So, the states cannot amend without Congress 1)proposing the amendment; or 2) calling a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.

You mean 3/4 (not 3/5) are necessary to ratify

[Into the Night]

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

Well argued, sir.