SCOTUS was NEVER granted the powers they have claimed by the Constitution. They CAN be stopped!

[DSandra]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves "

- https://www.chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/a-mere-thing-of-wax-a-random-note-on-marbury-v-madison

[Buckeyeblue]

1. Jefferson helped create the constitution

What did he think the Supreme Court would become? Especially with lifetime appointments and zero accountability.

It seems the only real checks the other branches can put on the court is by determining the number of justices. They could water down the influence a single justice or small block of justices had by appointing more justices.

[sl8]

3. Congress *could* do far more than change the number of justices.

Unlike their original jurisdiction, control of SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction is left to Congress, which they've done in the various judiciary acts.

But the chances of Congress changing the Court's appellate jurisdiction or otherwise substantially restricting SCOTUS in the forseeable future is approximately zero.

[GB_RN]

10. Yup.

No way the MAGAts in Congress would ever allow a change like that.

[GB_RN]

4. Jefferson Did The Declaration...

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2024, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Of Independence. He wasn’t in the United States in 1787-89, as he was our Ambassador to France, and had no direct involvement in the writing of it. He had correspondence with Madison and Washington; his letters had indirect influence, but that was the extent of his involvement. When you were a six-week journey from home, it would be kinda hard to have much direct input.🖖

[rickford66]

8. 1887 ?

[GB_RN]

9. Typo.

Was writing that as I ate breakfast at 0600.

Fixed.

[rickford66]

12. I only noticed it because I already had my coffee.

[marybourg]

5. Congress and the States can pass a

Constitutional Amendment to override a Court Ruling.

[FBaggins]

6. Sure... but if we could do that...

… we would have large enough majorities to just remove offending justices and replace them

[marybourg]

7. Absolutely true. I just wanted to point out the

balancing of power provided for in the Constitution.

[GB_RN]

11. They Could.

But no way it would pass both houses of Congress, much less 3/4 of the state legislatures.

[marybourg]

13. Just talking about what the Constitution provides

as a next step.

[GB_RN]

14. I Understand...

And please don’t take my earlier reply as an attack. Definitely not my intention.

Unfortunately, the current polarization and hostility from the Reichwingers makes the obvious remedy absolutely moot.

Goddamned fascists. I hate ‘em all.

[marybourg]

15. . . .

[FBaggins]

2. Missing from the video is any actual way they can be stopped

He seems to be hinting at jurisdiction stripping… but he then describes the power as resting in the Democratic-controlled US senate. But that appears to just be so that he can point fingers at Durbin.

The realities here are pretty simple:

It’s a bit late in history to challenge Marbury vs Madison. That ship has sailed. Spit in the wind if it makes you feel good Thom… but don’t be surprised at the results

The power does not rest with the Senate. It rests with the Congress as a whole … and we don’t control Congress.

Even in the chamber that we do control - we don’t have the votes for such a move. Durban isn’t blocking anything

They CAN be stopped. But it’s going to have to be the way that the other side won on Roe - decades of focus on the courts and winning the right elections.