Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wyden bill would add 6 scotus justices [View all]Dave says
(5,433 posts)70. Agreed. Neanderthal "law" is no foundation
For us, its the Constitution. Written in 1789. If a SCOTUS rules in ways at obvious variance to the Constitution, we - who bestow power on the court - should ignore their craziness. They can encourage amendments if they like. But there is a problem.
We the people have to agree to ignore obviously bad decisions by the court. They have no enforcement power. But we are a highly fractured nation. Many in the DOJ and in law enforcement can chose to protect and enforce their Neanderthal decisions as if they were the word of the Spaghetti Gods. I can see how such declining authority could lead to civil war.
Our nation is a mess.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Not if we win the Presidency (love our chances), the House (looking pretty good), the Senate (admittedly
Grown2Hate
Sep 2024
#3
True indeed. As it's structured right now, the court is vestigial and diseased.
Magoo48
Sep 2024
#31
The bill contains that provision. It requires a nomination to go to the floor if it hasn't been reported within 180 days
onenote
Sep 2024
#83
Glad you asked. Congress controls all things having to do with the judiciary's structure.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#29
I understand this. But the court has already seemed to ignore the constitution with insane rulings. What if they go just
ColinC
Sep 2024
#33
They can't. Congress is not subject to SCOTUS' opinions re Congress's constitutional right to expand SCOTUS.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#35
So my question is: does congress ignore the ruling if they try (because they probably would)?
ColinC
Sep 2024
#36
And my question to you is: why do you think SCOTUS can rule on anything Congress does to restructure it?
ancianita
Sep 2024
#45
Is it unconstitutional for Congress to restructure the judiciary, and expand the Supreme Court?
ancianita
Sep 2024
#49
Fine. You call judicial review ONLY as related to laws passed by Congress. Got it.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#59
Extraordinary is the point. We're in the inflection point Biden has continually pointed out that we're in.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#65
Exactly. One way around it would be to ignore them completely as they would be clearly in violation of the constitution
ColinC
Sep 2024
#63
It WON'T BE A LAW. It will be a vote on an ACT OF CONGRESS. Entirely different.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#68
Are we still talking about adding seats? Cause that would definitely be a law. Right?
ColinC
Sep 2024
#72
A law is an act after it is signed by the president. An act is the proposal for a law.
ColinC
Sep 2024
#77
Okay, fine. Nevertheless, it's wholly within the power of Congress to structurally expand SCOTUS.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#86
We can do it!! I really really want it to happen and I think Dems should be super aggressive
ColinC
Sep 2024
#94
Wyden is an On Time Patriot. When we retake the House, Hakeem Jeffries will get this done.
ancianita
Sep 2024
#25
It would be much easier to pressure Alito, Roberts and Thomas to resign based on
Sibelius Fan
Sep 2024
#47
Simple, we will not gain one vote from announcing that, it's unlikely to pass, there is not one Undecided who will say
Silent Type
Sep 2024
#89
I think it will impact Undecideds. Long-term might not hurt because we don't have the votes to pass it. n/t
Silent Type
Sep 2024
#92
Undecideds that weren't bothered by the current Court's imbalance? By the Garland nomination stall? By ethics issues?
onenote
Sep 2024
#95