🇺🇸 Ridin’ with Biden: It's Joever

US News
Cap2024 said:
There may be mixed wires.

Are you actually trying to say: very little to possibly nothing can be down to reign the Supreme Court in? That doing so may actually even be impossible?

If so, that is obviously incorrect.

The system was purposely designed so that one branch wouldn't reign over the others. If the Supreme Court actually did have ultimate power in the country (invulnerable, as it sounds like are trying to say) - that would have been known since the beginning of the country and those who actually know how the government works would be stating this is the case.

The supreme court, obviously, isn't invulnerable to getting reigned in. Easy? No. Impossible? Obviously not. The system was designed with checks and balances in mind and as one of the most important elements of the government’s design.

Saying otherwise is putting fear and emotion first over logic.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the SCOTUS has one power that no other branch has.....the power to interpret the law. If they say something is unconstitutional, then, it seems to me that by definition, it is. I don't see a way to implement a law that the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional.

Now, I may be missing something, but how exactly does the executive branch remove a justice without the backing of the law itself? Just physically remove them or disallow their attendance based on a law that the executive branch says "should" exist? Do you see my point?

The SCOTUS has made a LOT of rulings a LOT of people have disagreed with and until they changed their collective minds, that was the law. From where I sit, the only way to be halfway sure some restraints exist on the court is to expand it.

If the court says restraints on it by the other branches are unconstitutional, then how do you, under the law, justify their removal and HOW do you remove them and WHO does it without creating a political S***storm?

It's not that I don't want restraints on the court that ALL other branches have, but there has to be an enforcement mechanism and I could see lower courts saying "Look, we don't have the authority to remove a SC justice".
 
InCali said:
If the court says restraints on it by the other branches are unconstitutional, then how do you, under the law, justify their removal and HOW do you remove them and WHO does it without creating a political S***storm?

It's not that I don't want restraints on the court that ALL other branches have, but there has to be an enforcement mechanism and I could see lower courts saying "Look, we don't have the authority to remove a SC justice".
Click to expand...

This right here stems from fear over logic.

You are trying to state here that as long as the Supreme Court deems themselves to be invulnerable - they are invulnerable.

That simply isn’t how the country is set up.

So that not one branch can for all intents and purposes declare themselves a dictator and there’s nothing the other branches can do. If that was possible it would have been known many years ago.

Just because you and I don’t know the specifics of what checks and balances there are doesn’t mean they’re not there. Which is what this is all coming down to.

If the Supreme Court actually had unlimited power and were invulnerable, that wouldn’t have taken 235 years to learn. Obviously. People would know that for at least one hundred years, more than likely a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Cap2024 said:
This right here stems from fear over logic.

You are trying to state here that as long as the Supreme Court deems themselves to be invulnerable - they are invulnerable.

That simply isn’t how the country is set up.

So that not one branch can for all intents and purposes declare themselves a dictator and there’s nothing the other branches can do. If that was possible it would have been known many years ago.

Just because you and I don’t know the specifics of what checks and balances there are doesn’t mean they’re not there. Which is what this is all coming down to.

If the Supreme Court actually had unlimited power and were invulnerable, that wouldn’t have taken 235 years to learn. Obviously. People would know that for at least one hundred years, more than likely a lot more.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they are invulnerable and can't be removed. What I'm saying is that they interpret the law and that makes it problematic if they rule a law unconstitutional. That's it.

There are of course, WAYS to remove a justice; be it by term limits or ethics violations (the latter already exists, but is essentially non-functional), but, and I keep asking this, but never get an answer, HOW exactly do you do it?

I've simply suggested the most politically expedient way to reel in a court that has crossed the line (IMO). It still entails some political dangers, but much less than, say, sending federal marshals to physically remove them if they have ruled that a law restraining them is unconstitutional.

So, I've suggested expanding a court so it is better suited to making rational decisions. If there are better examples of how to approach this potential problem, I haven't heard an answer to a question I've asked multiple, multiple times.
 
InCali said:
I'm not saying they are invulnerable and can't be removed. What I'm saying is that they interpret the law and that makes it problematic if they rule a law unconstitutional. That's it.

There are of course, WAYS to remove a justice; be it by term limits or ethics violations (the latter already exists, but is essentially non-functional), but, and I keep asking this, but never get an answer, HOW exactly do you do it?

I've simply suggested the most politically expedient way to reel in a court that has crossed the line (IMO). It still entails some political dangers, but much less than, say, sending federal marshals to physically remove them if they have ruled that a law restraining them is unconstitutional.

So, I've suggested expanding a court so it is better suited to making rational decisions. If there are better examples of how to approach this potential problem, I haven't heard an answer to a question I've asked multiple, multiple times.
Click to expand...

I have stated since the beginning my whole thing is not giving answers on those matters. I wouldn’t pretend to know the way how to for a second since I don’t know those matters. I would be talking out of my a.

All I know is the court has checks and balances to reign them in since if that wasn’t the case, it wouldn’t take 235 years for the country to learn that.

Per those answers, your best bet are all of the articles out there already on possible solutions. All of which will be politically controversial since conservatives like the way it is now.
 
Cap2024 said:
I have stated since the beginning my whole thing is not giving answers on those matters.

I wouldn’t pretend to know the way how to for a second since I don’t at all.

All I know is the court has checks and balances to reign them in since if that wasn’t the case, it wouldn’t take 235 years for the country to learn that.

Per those answers, your best bet are all of the articles out there already on possible solutions. All of which will be politically controversial since conservatives like the way it is now.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I was simply stating what I considered the best approach to having the SCOTUS be more reflective of the electorate rather than being pushed in a particular president who happens to appoint a 1/3 of the court.

If others have better ideas, great.
 
Well, if he's going to (which I doubt), he goddamn well bwetter do it soon. What I wonder is if Kamala would fare better in the general election. To me the only question is how to best keep a misogynistic, gay bashing, sociopath out of office.
 
InCali said:
Well, if he's going to (which I doubt), he goddamn well bwetter do it soon. What I wonder is if Kamala would fare better in the general election. To me the only question is how to best keep a misogynistic, gay bashing, sociopath out of office.
Click to expand...
As we saw with Clinton, the US is still weird about a woman being POTUS even if she's qualified. Kamala has been criticized as not being ready for such a position in the past and being a woman of color is facing quite an uphill battle. I don't know if she can debate against a Trump who will constantly come after her while openly lying.

Objectively, she is a far better candidate than Biden or Trump, but this is politics where optics and feelings over facts are thing. Take the Blue MAGA who said he hates Bernie Sanders.
 
Again, great, Biden drops out, 112 days till the election, who you got? This is crazy democrats are imploding at the worse possible over one debate, its like they have zero idea what they are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marx
The Vice-President Joseph Biden Thread
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
16K
the_ultimate_evil
the_ultimate_evil
Marx
  • Locked
The Vice-President Joseph Biden Thread: 'Jury Duty' Edition
71 72 73
Replies
2K
Views
103K
Thread Manager
T
D
  • Poll Poll
🇺🇸 Do You Want Joe Biden To Run For Re-Election In 2024?
Replies
22
Views
2K
InCali
InCali
D
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
🇺🇸 Georgia Runoff Elections 2021 Thread
7 8 9
Replies
207
Views
14K
Lily Adler
Lily Adler
Marx
The 2008 Presidential Inauguration
66 67 68
Replies
2K
Views
103K
Gilpesh
Gilpesh

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 8,437 (members: 17, guests: 8,420)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,823
Messages
22,032,069
Members
45,826
Latest member
Corinthian

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"