General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoliticsGirl: There's nothing in the Constitution that says SCOTUS is the final word on what's constitutional
Link to tweet
Theres nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court is the final word on whats constitutional. They gave themselves that power with the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. Maybe its time we re-litigate the precedent of judicial review Sam.
Captain Obvious️
Samuel Alito: Theres nothing in the Constitution that says a woman has the right to an abortion.
Well, theres nothing in the Constitution that says a former president has full immunity from prosecution.
🤔
grumpyduck
(6,640 posts)is there anything in there that says she doesn't?
ProfessorGAC
(69,595 posts)Many of the amendments are prohibitions on the government. It enumerates what they can't do.
So, there are tons of things people should be free to do that aren't enumerated.
They don't need to be in the constitution.
Delmette2.0
(4,260 posts)women for anything!
It was a man's world and right now they want full control back.
But, we are not going back!!
RidinWithHarris
(746 posts)It's awful for the current corrupt SCOTUS to have the power of the final word on what is or isn't constitutional, but if that's not the system, what would be?
tinrobot
(11,452 posts)Nasruddin
(824 posts)Another question you might ask is, what problems has the Supreme Court solved, as opposed to ones it has created or amplified?
Maybe we could just do without it.
An interesting example is the German system, which has multiple supreme courts for various areas (laws, taxes) and a constitutional court that probably covers a lot of the topic area that we are concerned with in this discussion (US Supreme Court has broad mandate in many areas). The selection / management of the judicial body is also interesting to look at.
About how other countries deal with constitutions, that seems to be a complex topic. UK famously lacks a single concise document. German constitution appears longer and more complex than ours. How rigidly, or what theories, these countries use to apply their constitutions I don't know at all.
madinmaryland
(65,128 posts)Rectify anything the SCOTUS defines the constitution as saying.
markodochartaigh
(1,916 posts)Congress can include wording in the bills that they (the representatives elected by the people) pass that says that "this bill is not subject to judicial review."
RidinWithHarris
(746 posts)So, regardless of how much awfulness of the current SCOTUS I'd like to see reversed, I can't imagine that would fly as a way to do it. The downside of that power is extremely negative.
markodochartaigh
(1,916 posts)the hands of 535 elected officials than in the hands of 9 unelected officials.
RidinWithHarris
(746 posts)...plus a President willing to sign on to stealing our rights, a situation which has already existed way, way too many times in our history.
Mysterian
(5,189 posts)That's not how it works.
Codifer
(748 posts)And has worked well in the past. There is naught wrong with the basic system.
The nature of the society is the tell. We, as a society, have become corrupt and the interpretation of the Rule of Law has become corrupt. The driver of these corruptions is enormous greed which has given rise to the most massive pools of wealth/power the world has ever seen. New territory.
Very hard to reverse that.
I hope that the above makes some sense. My morning ritual puff has settled gently in but at least, I hope, more coherent than tsf.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,868 posts)Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS and this act would reverse the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity and restrict the court's jurisdiction
Link to tweet
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/chuck-schumer-remove-presidential-immunity-trump-rcna164618
If it is passed, the legislation would make it clear that Congress has the power to determine to whom federal criminal laws may be applied," not the Supreme Court, according to the bill's outline provided by Schumer's office.
In his statement explaining his reasoning for the legislation, Schumer called the Supreme Court's decision about Trump's immunity "disastrous," arguing that "the Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law."
Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion for the court that lower courts needed to determine through additional proceedings what Trump could face prosecution for.
Marcuse
(7,982 posts)Kid Berwyn
(17,772 posts)Even if not, I appreciate the thoughtful countenance.
wnylib
(24,178 posts)lost his head over asserting absolute power as king. Parliament disagreed, triggering a civil war and the trial and beheading of Charles I.
Kid Berwyn
(17,772 posts)But cutting through the Gordian knot of it all is the fact that in the United States of America all people are created equal and are equal under the law. First the kings didn't like it. Then the slave-owners didn't like it. And now slave-masters of Big Money don't like it.
I like the idea that no man is above the law. That includes the likes of Trump, DeVos/Prince, Musk and Thiel.
Marcuse
(7,982 posts)Kid Berwyn
(17,772 posts)Many if not most of them seem to believe it, based on the way they treat the Others they consider their "inferiors."
Take what was the Belgian Congo, today the Democratic Republic of Congo, once a possession of the king and then a colony of Belgium. Big bucks were made simply by taking or looting or extracting the minerals right from under the dead feet of the people who just had happened to live there. Big Oil has operated in a similar fashion transnationally ever since the CIA was new to the Dulles Brothers, the Bush family and Brown Brothers Harriman.
I loathe the idea that any one is my superior. Furthermore, I loathe its corollary, the idea that I consider myself superior to any one else. That doesn't mean I won't knock the teeth out of a NAZI, no matter their lifestyle, bank account or reputation as a philanthropist, when I see one.
Seinan Sensei
(674 posts)Except when they don't
All good Believers know Romans 13:1 when a Rethug is President:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
But they conveniently overlook this verse when the "authority" is a Democrat
Or when that "authority" is a Vice President they do not like
ReRe
(10,717 posts)we need another law or possibly an amendment to this "No Kings Act" which deals with Presidential candidates
who won't concede when they lose an election.
keithbvadu2
(39,858 posts)Even if they disagree.
OK. Now it gets complicated.
Shipwack
(2,292 posts)FakeNoose
(35,416 posts)Just sayin'
Happy Hoosier
(8,299 posts)We just need a boost in checks and balances. And some judicial reform.
TBF
(34,042 posts)FakeNoose
(35,416 posts)... to the effect that "no President is allowed to appoint more than 1 SCOTUS Justice per term in office." So if a President gets re-elected he/she can make a 2nd appointment in their 2nd term. If they don't get re-elected, no additional appointments permitted. A rule like THAT would have prevented Chump's disaster.
erronis
(16,751 posts)Of course, since Thomas and Alito are getting up there and apparently like to dine on very "fine" fare, perhaps they'll be the first to go.
FakeNoose
(35,416 posts)... I don't see that as a problem.
It cuts down on the Justices who hold off retiring so that they can be replaced by the President of their choice. That's how Chump got 2 picks, and then Justice Ginsberg passed away.
In the previous eight years, how many SCOTUS selections did Obama get to make?
surfered
(2,690 posts)BattleRow
(1,135 posts)doesn't have the right?
moonshinegnomie
(2,907 posts)The Supreme Court has no actual ability to enforce their rulings. Enforcement is a function of the executive branch
Joinfortmill
(16,282 posts)3825-87867
(1,066 posts)new members could change the rulings and congress could then pass a law no president is immune by law saving the discussion for future debates.
3825-87867
(1,066 posts)to those Justices. We know they CAN be impeached, but with presidential immunity an official act, such as concern over qualification or partisanship, might have the power to remove one or more. Then fight it out later.
former9thward
(33,418 posts)See how it turns out.
sarchasm
(1,226 posts)RANDYWILDMAN
(2,854 posts)I think he Can't go any lower, he proves me wrong
Farmer-Rick
(11,219 posts)I'm surprised this post doesn't get more rabid attacks. I've posted this exact same issue, and you would think I had asked everyone to get rid of their pets or something.
Anyway, the Supremes have taken on more power than was given them in the US Constitution.
If you took away their power to review for Constitutionality, they would be just like any other court. They would review laws and disputes between states. Whatever is laid out in the Constitution for them to do.
Also there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives Supreme Court Justices lifetime appointments. They gave themselves that too.
They are only there as long as they hold their office during good behavior, as the Constitution says. Doesn't sound like lifetime appointments to me.
The legislative branch has the power to determine what good behavior is and can and should impeach them.
FakeNoose
(35,416 posts)The same thing was said about the SCOTUS then - only it was the ultra-conservatives who thought Chief Justice Earl Warren was off his rocker. The difference between then and now is that the SCOTUS justices under Warren weren't playing politics, they were righting the racial wrongs of earlier generations. In some cases they might have overstepped, but that has been corrected in later rulings.
This set of SCOTUS justices (the cons I mean) are just playing "tit-for-tat." Also some are secretly playing "what's in it for me" - only that wasn't supposed to become common knowledge. The Federalist puppet masters are running the show, the Justices are just dancing like they've been taught.
republianmushroom
(17,261 posts)a seated president cannot be charged with a crime while in office.
43 months and counting (includes foot dragging)
-misanthroptimist
(1,143 posts)...and it's probably a willful misinterpretation.
The 9th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the People retain all kinds of Rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. So, the standard shouldn't be "Where does the Constitution grant that Right?" The correct standard should be "Where in the Constitution is that Power delegated to government?"
It is patently obvious that Government is nowhere delegated the Power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Alito, and those like him, either are liars who manipulate the Constitution to get their own way or ignoramuses. Neither has any business interpreting the Constitution.
V850i
(64 posts)Congress or at least Schumer and President Biden should say that they connect recognize this decision as it is an extralegal amendment to the Constitution.
Clouds Passing
(1,900 posts)mucholderthandirt
(1,120 posts)Making a law against women that is solely based on any particular religious belief is not constitutional. It should be reinstated right now, and all states' laws infringing upon a woman's right to choose are therefore repealed. Any doctor who let's a woman suffer, even die, because they fear for themselves should be stripped of their license and imprisoned for murder, or attempted murder.
Why people aren't in the streets over this, instead of worrying about Trump's MAGA idiots is beyond me. Some good lawyer should be appealing the decision on the grounds of separation of church and state. We are a secular country, no matter how hard some people argue we aren't. We are not a nation found on the Bible, the founding fathers made that clear. We follow democratic principles, and there's no religion in those.