Once they legalized coups, they lost all legitimacy in my opinion.
The SCOTUS situation is scarier than the POTUS situation which was already frightening enough.
*Coups are only legal if initiated by the President.
Don’t forget they legalized bribery long before making coups legal. That’s when they were testing the waters. Now they know they can be blatent with their rulings and noone will hold them accountable.
Hmmm, I wonder if the left or any democracy loving peoples can create a temporary armed anti-coup force, just in case?
Frankly, the writing has been on the wall since they overturned the election in 2000; it’s just gotten a lot more blatant.
The silver lining here is they have no power of enforcement themselves, and their decisions can be reversed if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine to do so.
Democrats just need to get Biden out of the race so Trump can be kept out of office. And the house majority is very slim, so that can potentially be flipped too if the base can actually be energized instead of suppressed the way they have been. Democrats win when there is high turn out, so the name of the game needs to be showing people that Democrats are capable of listening.
…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.
A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.
But yes, packing the court alone doesn’t guaruntee the court can’t be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:
-
expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that’s just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then
-
Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.
There’s no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we’ve had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there’s no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.
None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.
And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…
Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.
Precedent is literally just a tradition that’s agreed upon, there’s nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.
So in that sense it’s a double-edged sword, it’s just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it’s always been this way.
-
they have no power of enforcement themselves
…which is why they’re working in tandem with the corrupt GOP, which does have the power. There isn’t a separation of powers in practice, just Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, what I’m saying is if you can keep the GOP out of power you hobble the supreme court. Like I said, it’s a source of hope and a goal to aim your political effort towards, not a permanent solution.
People downvoting this seem confused. I made the assumption people were able to understand I was talking longer term fight.
As correct as Bernie Sanders has been his entire life, he’s also right here.
Granting one branch of government absolute and unfettered authority is the end of stable government.
In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:
“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
Specifically, immunity from civil damages. The president couldn’t be sued by randos claiming he cost them a job or whatever.
This is a new class of fascism. Keep on trollin’.
The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.
That Liberal Media that keeps treating Trump like a real candidate despite the 34 felonies?
You disagree with 74 million people then?
I do, and I’m tired of pretending I don’t.
This most recent ruling wildly expanded the immunity, added presumed immunity for adjacent actions, and phrased everything in such a way that actually prosecuting the president for literally anything will take years.
Say the president does something you think is illegal and should be prosecuted. Stop. Before you can take him to court over that, you need to determine if what he did was “official” or “unofficial.” SCOTUS didn’t give deterministic guidelines to differentiate, so you need to have a separate court case just for that. Alright so let’s have the court case that determines whether what the president did was official or unofficial. Let’s introduce some evidence—
Stop. Evidence from official acts cannot be introduced in a case to prove something was unofficial. So you actually need to have a separate court case to determine if that evidence is official or unofficial. Once you have your results, one party won’t like it and will appeal it up and up to the supreme court. Repeat for potentially every single piece of evidence.
Okay now that we know what evidence we can and can’t introduce, we can finally determine if what the president did was official or unofficial. Once we have a result, one party won’t like it and it will be appealed all the way up to the supreme court again. Only when SCOTUS rules the action was unofficial (IF they rule it was unofficial) can you then BEGIN the process of actually taking the president to court over that action.
This will take years, not to mention the supreme court is appointed by the president and it recently ruled that taking bribes after you do something instead of before is perfectly legal actually. This is all by design. The point is to keep this all tied up in court for years, which effectively gives the president full immunity for everything. And he can also pressure the courts or judges to rule his way via any number of threats (if you think that’s an unofficial act, feel free to take him to court over it).
This is pretty clearly designed to functionally protect the president from all culpability (which the dissenting SCOTUS opinions agree on, ergo their dissent).
Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.
Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.
Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.
So Bernie & AOC are the only ones I’ve heard that call for change of the SCOTUS.
Only ones serving the people & deserving of support in many aspects.
That’s understandable since they are the most popular.
My city’s senator called it out on the news and it’s not getting any attention from mainstream media.
And remember that it’s only been about 48 hours since Biden can legally assassinate anybody so right now, the news is kinda uncertain how to play this out.
Fucking let’s go. Do it.
Bidens guys already came out saying they don’t want to reform the Supreme Court. It’s not on the ballot this cycle.
Yall gonna hate me, but it is on the presidential ballot, Jill Stein has come out supporting term limits and expanding the court after this fiasco.
Sure, but only if we had ranked choice voting.
She supports that too
She’s got my vote!
A vote for that traitor is a vote for both Russian assets.
Oh, the audacity of that woman to go and get pictured with Putin like that, in public, at a larger conference, in the interest of actual diplomacy.
Surely this is on the same level of treachery as a closed door meeting with no American translator. Or the eternal fanning of war flames by neolibs in order to fund the military industrial complex.
You mean Russian Asset Jill Stein?
Is this that one photo again? Why yes it is. Surely you wouldn’t vote for a candidate with photos of being friendly with Putin
It’s more than the photo and you know it.
But it is the same old photo, i knew what it was gonna be before i even clicked it
Righto, I suppose you also support the annexation of Ukraine like your hero does? That makes you the enemy of democracy.
We called for this on day 1 of Biden’s first term…
He chose to put a bipartisan committee in charge of seeing if we should just let the corrupt Republican SC stay in power, and the committee waited two years till dems didnt have the numbers to fix anything, before recommending Dems don’t fix anything.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773
The aristocrats! /s
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
You can’t reform the court without a Constitutional Amendment since the operation and formation of the court is defined by the Constitution.
So, 2/3rds vote in the House, 2/3rds vote in the Senate, ratification by the States.
If the Republicans take the Senate and White House, they will ditch the filibuster the first day the next Senate leader takes the gavel. Count on it.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 should be amended today, and 4+ justices should be confirmed before January. It’s a hell of a lot easier to confirm them now than it will be for Republicans to remove them from the bench next year. Not easy, mind you, but easier.
In other words everyone, things are not going according to Liberals/Democrats, so, we need to change the entire structure, Constitution, and political system in America.
