Democrats — especially progressives — have increasingly expressed more anger at the high court in recent years.
“Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be ‘I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not,’” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quipped.
Bush is only moderate now that we have fascists and terrorist as a segment of the party. I wish we could stop acting like Republicans were ever reasonable. At least in recent history.
If the vote fails (as it likely would) then we can see which politicians are our enemies and need to be replaced. The failed vote could be used as a rallying cry to motivate voters and spark protests and generate momentum for reform. A vote would generate a news cycle.
Impeachment starts in the House, which is currently run by Republicans. So that's a non-starter unless you want to impeach Kagan, Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson.
There is a second remedy: constitutional amendment. Not sure exactly who should be watching the watchers if it's not Congress. But we can assign someone to do so.
Maybe a supermajority of district court judges should rule on issues involving SCOTUS justices.
Republicans control the house and the senate is still subject to the filibuster and likely will remain that way until the next time there is 52+ dem senators + dem house + dem president simultaneously.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress absolutely has, per the Constitution, clear authority to regulate the SCOTUS. How's this for an exception. The Supreme Court shall have no Jurisdiction in any case where any member of the court has a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse themselves?