The Supreme Court is out of control and must be reformed
The Supreme Court is out of control and must be reformed
The majority then announced, with an opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, that it was overthrowing the student loan forgiveness program, granting a request from six Republican state attorneys general on behalf of a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that did not want to be used as a plaintiff. Without MOHELA, the states did not have standing to bring the suit—they are not directly harmed.
Roberts and the majority weren’t going to be bothered by the fact that their plaintiff was an unwilling participant in this highly partisan scheme. "By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri ... The [debt forgiveness] plan will cut MOHELA's revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students,” Roberts wrote. “This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself."
Never mind that in oral arguments the state admitted that MOHELA wasn’t aiding Missouri college students because it hadn’t paid into that fund in 15 years, and “said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future.”
Even worse was the other case that was based on a gay person's marriage. Turns out he is/was not gay, already married, had a child and didn't know that his name was used for a case.
The US Supreme Court is judging made up cases now.
As a European I hope that everyone in the US will vote accordingly to at least try to bring back some semblance of rationality back.
One of the challenges in overcoming the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is needing a sufficient leftist majority in both branches of Congress to pass legislation, and this majority needs to be large enough to overwhelm the more restrained members of that majority. If this ever actually happens, the revamp of the SCOTUS is an inevitability.
The grim reality is insofar as legislation goes, any law passed or executive action taken can be challenged legally and the SCOTUS seems very willing to grant cert in arbitrary and capricious manners to overturn the legislation (or past judicial decision). The only saving grace of this series of decisions lately is revoking the independent state legislature theory, but that doesn't really stop state governments from committing electoral fraud :/
Rationality isn't returning to the SCOTUS for a long time sadly.
Please vote everyone in the US. Most important thing you may do without having any notion.
There's no way out of this without expanding the court right? There are no easy ways to get these lifetime appointments removed, are there?
Edit: actually I just read they are trying to impose supreme court term limits!
The only other option is to bust out the guillotine. Waiting for them to die naturally is gonna take too long, they clearly will never retire if their own free will, and no one in charge seems to care enough to do anything about their crimes.
So either we expand or revolt.
Absolutely not true, another option besides just murdering them is to place term limits on the court. Link is a bill introduced by Ro Khanna that'd have the most senior judge replaced every 2 years. If there were enough dems in the House and Senate reforms would absolutely be possible.
I was under the impression they could be impeached.
Sure, but only for an impeachment offence. Even if there was unanimous consent for everyonebut the majority Justices, we're talking 300000000 to 5, that disagreed with a decision, the decision still stands and isn't an impeachable offense. So a Justice would have to do something egregious. Then impeachment would have to have a majority consent of the House and 2/3rds consent of the Senate, and the Senate would then have to make a motion to remove that Justice. So it isn't realistic that this would happen, especially with the razor thin margins of control in both chambers. Party politics would block the removal.
Agreed, if things don’t go exactly my way, I want it changed until they do. Our opinion or no opinion at all! Right guys?
Could also abolish SCOTUS. Maybe force it to not be a lifetime appointment and rather it be a rotating committee from lesser courts?
Circuit judges elected every 16 years w/o term limits by a popular vote would probably strike a nice balance. The role requires expertise, which is only really established by years in the field. Also want to avoid the election cycle being too influential on decisions. Yet, there needs to be a democratic mechanism.
I don't think there's any argument about it, but there is one key problem and that is, outside of impeachment, there is no provision in the Constitution to do it.
Alito is absolutely right on that point, which means the only way to do it is through an amendment and we are simply too divided to get either an amemdment or a full convention passed.
I have to disagree with you here - Alioto is lying. It's on the very first line where the Constitution starts describing the Supreme Court.
Article 3, Section 1 first line:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish
The court itself was established through an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and Congress has had the power to both set the number of judges and impeach them throughout the entire history of the United States. If Congress had the will to do so, they could repeal and replace the Judiciary Act and still be under their Constitutional mandate - and the Act has been amended and expanded on substantially by Congress since its inception.
Alioto should be disbarred for even suggesting such a facetious legal theory.
The problem is in the phrasing. You bolded it too late.
"and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
The Supreme Court is ordained and established by the Constitution itself, NOT Congress.
So what this phrase is talking about are the lower courts that Congress CAN ordain and establish.
If Congress decided "You know, I think we need a 14th circuit court..." that's something they COULD do.
But as far as controlling the Supreme Court, they are limited to Confirming and Impeaching, and since Confirming only applies to new additions, and the issues we are having are with justices already Confirmed, that leaves Impeachment.
And Impeachment is a dead end with a House run by Republicans and a Senate that needs 60 votes to do anything.
I acknowledge that I have a choice to shut up and let you all talk. I'm choosing not to do that, because I disagree. I have realized over the last few years that either side of a debate shutting up and walking away is the beginning of the echo chamber, and buffoonery follows soon after. It doesn't matter which side it's on.
I absolutely support what the Supreme Court is doing, standing in opposition to other parts of the government, taking real action to preserve the status quo or to make changes according to their view of the Constitution. That's their job. If you don't like it, then yes, please, vote in your local elections for candidates doing the things you believe. Because eventually, either we're going to get back to bipartisanship, or we will see secession happen again. I expect to pick up my life within the next few years and move to another state in the US because I disagree with the policies of my local government, and that's fine; let the people who are happy stay and the disgruntled depart if they've tried to effect change and haven't seen it work. But over time, we'll either need to keep building walls or rebuild bridges.
It's up to all of us, not just here online but in the country as a whole, to choose - which will you help to build, a wall or a bridge? Will you understand the values and reasoning of those you currently oppose, understand the motivation for their actions; and try to find actions where you have commonality of motive? Or will you just plug your ears, stay in the echo chamber, declare your tribe good and the other evil, and prepare for a war?
I'd like to say I want to work with others, but I've been burned many times when I tried. I am angry, hurt, and probably suffering from trauma. I don't mind right now that others feel that pain. I am occasionally conscious that it is wrong to find happiness in the suffering of others; but I can't deny what I feel. I think that's a problem a lot of people have, across the country.
The Supreme Court is not at all out of control. It's reflecting the feelings and trauma of a massive number of Americans and American communities. The Court is judicially surfacing long-standing emotional wounds that have been drawn into focus. They're fully under control. They're doing the right job.