Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court’s shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

  • @Clinicallydepressedpoochie
    link
    0
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Why don’t we just take away their exclusive right to interpret the constitution. They can interpret laws but they have no claim to be the sole proprietors of the document that all branches have a stake in.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 hours ago

      That would require a constitutional amendment, and with a change that radical, it would pretty much require a new constitution.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 minutes ago

        It wouldn’t. They gained that power by saying they have it, but it isn’t specifically granted. We just continue to assume they’re correct, and that they’re the ones who get to decide if they’re correct, but we don’t have to.

        Judicial Review is the term to look for if you want to learn more.

      • @Clinicallydepressedpoochie
        link
        02 hours ago

        Why? No where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court has exclusive rights to interpret the constitution.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 hours ago

          Please use the word “powers”. The government does not have “rights”.

          The clauses you say don’t exist are Sections 1 and 2 of Article III.

          • @Clinicallydepressedpoochie
            link
            1
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            It’s not a power outlined in the constitution. The Supreme Court assigned it themsleves as their right.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 hours ago

              Ok, please explain to me what powers are conveyed, and to who, in Article III, Sections 1 and 2, because we clearly have wildly different understandings of their meaning.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  Civil tongue, please.

                  It seems to me that any disagreement as to who should be interpreting the constitution would be a “[Case], in Law and Equity, arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States…”

                  Sections 1 and 2 do, indeed, empower someone to address such a case, such a disagreement: the “inferior courts” and the “Supreme court”.

                  If you have no disagreement, you can let your HOA or the local parks and rec department interpret the constitution for you. It’s only when you have a disagreement that anyone cares who has that power, and in such cases, Section 2 says that SCOTUS has jurisdiction to rule on that case.

                  • @Clinicallydepressedpoochie
                    link
                    21 hour ago

                    I’m not saying the judicial branch has no stake. I’m just saying they have overreached and the power they been allowed needs to be hampered.