4 ms·

Gotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess

by leoh 3y ago

falcolas 3y ago
Definitely feels like we're in a "who watches the watchers" situation here. I know that theoretically Congress can make laws to set limits on the SC, but the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Additionally federal judges, including supreme court justices, are theoretically subject to the check of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. However, in practice, only one supreme court justice[1] has ever been impeached, and even then was acquitted. Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate. 1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything. “66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      Ah, oops, mixed up the proposal requirements and the ratification requirements. 2/3 to propose. 3/4 to ratify.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        2/3 of each House of Congress isn’t 2/3 of America, though.
        OkayPhysicist 3y ago
        It can also be 2/3 of states by convention, which, while isn't 2/3 of the population, 2/3 of states is compellingly 2/3 "of America".
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.

Gotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess

by leoh 3y ago

Gotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess

Definitely feels like we're in a "who watches the watchers" situation here. I know that theoretically Congress can make laws to set limits on the SC, but the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Additionally federal judges, including supreme court justices, are theoretically subject to the check of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. However, in practice, only one supreme court justice[1] has ever been impeached, and even then was acquitted. Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate. 1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything. “66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    Ah, oops, mixed up the proposal requirements and the ratification requirements. 2/3 to propose. 3/4 to ratify.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      2/3 of each House of Congress isn’t 2/3 of America, though.
      - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
        It can also be 2/3 of states by convention, which, while isn't 2/3 of the population, 2/3 of states is compellingly 2/3 "of America".
- falcolas 3y ago
  > It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
JohnFen 3y ago
> the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.