3 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean, other than the fact that the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices? But this typically happens over the span of many years, across

by lapcat 1y ago

I'm not sure what you mean, other than the fact that the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices? But this typically happens over the span of many years, across different Congresses. Also, nominees are purposely vague about how they would rule on future cases, sometimes to the consternation of the President who appointed them.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
Theoretically Congress has a lot of power over the Supreme Court, if they're sufficiently unified and motivated. The confirmation aspect is one end, but Congress also has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices. So, theoretically, Congress could impeach all the justices that are believed to be acting in unconstitutional ways, and then refuse to confirm any new nominees that are believed would act similarly.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Theoretically Congress has a lot of power over the Supreme Court, if they're sufficiently unified and motivated Far from theoretical. We got the New Deal because the Congress bullied the court.
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    This is debated.[1] And sufficient unity and motivation do not exist in Congress now. Theoretically was appropriate. [1] https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-won-new-deal-confrontation-between.html https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-won-new-deal-confron...
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> not sure what you mean, other than the fact that the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices? This is the entire text of Article III [1]. Section 1, the part that concerns itself with the Supreme Court, is 64 words. That and the Appointments clause [2] are all the Constitution has to say about our entire judiciary. Everything else is a creature of statute. Which means a simple majority of the House and Senate, together with the President, can change it. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
- lapcat 1y ago
  Congress could also simply impeach the President again and this time remove him from office for such nonsense. My point, though, was that the First Amendment, cited by the OP, is not necessarily going to stop this particular action, because as things stand now, barring a fundamental change in structure that nobody in the Congressional majority is currently proposing, the current Supreme Court decides what the First Amendment means, and the majority seems content to allow the current President to do basically anything he wants.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > as things stand now, barring a fundamental change in structure that nobody in the Congressional majority is currently proposing I mean yes, SCOTUS rules supreme until at least 2026. My point is Democrats have had two trifectas in the last 20 years. We used one to pass ACA. We wasted the second. The idea that the current structure of SCOTUS is immutable has somehow become lore. It is not true. The Constitution is brief on the courts because it left constructing them to Congress.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      > The idea that the current structure of SCOTUS is immutable has somehow become lore. 1. I did not say that it was immutable. 2. There was actually quite a bit of public debate during the Biden administration about expanding the Supreme Court, which Biden himself explicitly rejected. So you're not telling me anything I didn't already know.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    > Congress could also simply impeach the President again and this time remove him from office for such nonsense. It's not as simple in that case because the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, which cannot be overridden without an amendment. The nation is split pretty much 50/50 not 60/40, so a 50 vote threshold is easier to achieve.

by lapcat 1y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

Theoretically Congress has a lot of power over the Supreme Court, if they're sufficiently unified and motivated. The confirmation aspect is one end, but Congress also has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices. So, theoretically, Congress could impeach all the justices that are believed to be acting in unconstitutional ways, and then refuse to confirm any new nominees that are believed would act similarly.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Theoretically Congress has a lot of power over the Supreme Court, if they're sufficiently unified and motivated Far from theoretical. We got the New Deal because the Congress bullied the court.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  This is debated.[1] And sufficient unity and motivation do not exist in Congress now. Theoretically was appropriate. [1] https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-won-new-deal-confrontation-between.html https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-won-new-deal-confron...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> not sure what you mean, other than the fact that the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices? This is the entire text of Article III [1]. Section 1, the part that concerns itself with the Supreme Court, is 64 words. That and the Appointments clause [2] are all the Constitution has to say about our entire judiciary. Everything else is a creature of statute. Which means a simple majority of the House and Senate, together with the President, can change it. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

lapcat 1y ago
Congress could also simply impeach the President again and this time remove him from office for such nonsense. My point, though, was that the First Amendment, cited by the OP, is not necessarily going to stop this particular action, because as things stand now, barring a fundamental change in structure that nobody in the Congressional majority is currently proposing, the current Supreme Court decides what the First Amendment means, and the majority seems content to allow the current President to do basically anything he wants.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > as things stand now, barring a fundamental change in structure that nobody in the Congressional majority is currently proposing I mean yes, SCOTUS rules supreme until at least 2026. My point is Democrats have had two trifectas in the last 20 years. We used one to pass ACA. We wasted the second. The idea that the current structure of SCOTUS is immutable has somehow become lore. It is not true. The Constitution is brief on the courts because it left constructing them to Congress.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > The idea that the current structure of SCOTUS is immutable has somehow become lore. 1. I did not say that it was immutable. 2. There was actually quite a bit of public debate during the Biden administration about expanding the Supreme Court, which Biden himself explicitly rejected. So you're not telling me anything I didn't already know.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  > Congress could also simply impeach the President again and this time remove him from office for such nonsense. It's not as simple in that case because the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, which cannot be overridden without an amendment. The nation is split pretty much 50/50 not 60/40, so a 50 vote threshold is easier to achieve.