A lot of people are commenting on how the SCOTUS ruling expands presidential power, and it does, but I haven't seen as much commentary on how this and the Chevron ruling expand the courts powers.
The SCOTUS has basically constructed for itself a veto over any action the executive branch can take. While they can't be proactive, they have e…
A lot of people are commenting on how the SCOTUS ruling expands presidential power, and it does, but I haven't seen as much commentary on how this and the Chevron ruling expand the courts powers.
The SCOTUS has basically constructed for itself a veto over any action the executive branch can take. While they can't be proactive, they have essentially positioned themselves as a filter, able to rubber stamp any conservative initiative they desire and stop any liberal or left-wing one they dislike.
This is why people were warning everyone that the court had become illegitimate for years before this happened. It was clear that this is what the federalist society wanted from the start. Since courts are not elected, they've essentially created a node of conservative power completely immune to the will of the people.
What I'd like to know is, in light of what has happened with that and otherwise recently, if people still feel that the idea of "court packing," in the form of adding additional justices to the Supreme Court, was such a bad one after all. There is ample room for debate on that in both directions, but it seems to be a worthy discussion as to whether so much power and authority belong in the hands of just nine people who have essentially lifelong job security with no accountability. (Looking at you in particular here, Clarence.)
I think court packing is a suboptimal solution, but I'd take it over the status quo.
In my mind, the real solution is to empanel each SCOTUS case with nine randomly selected circuit court judges. That way new appointments can't radically alter the partisan makeup of the court.
Also create provisions to prevent a judge from hearing a case they've already decided, and strict ethics and recusal standards.
I wasn’t for it before but over the last few years I realized that my idea (very much Biden’s) of economic populism could slow down Trumpism was wrong and we need structural reform (more states, more justices, no filibuster). The problem is that doesn’t resonate with people. At least I don’t think so
As long as Congress remains in gridlock you are absolutely correct. If Congress wrote clear regulations, it would be more difficult or impossible for the Scotus to overrule.
If Congress can bestir itself, it could declare Chevron deference the law of the land and I wonder what the court would do with that.
The Court has fashioned "for itself a veto over any action the executive branch can take."
And more!
We have the historic precedent of Bush v Gore (2000) to license the Court to pull the rug out from under a winning presidential candidate in a contested post-election.
A lot of people are commenting on how the SCOTUS ruling expands presidential power, and it does, but I haven't seen as much commentary on how this and the Chevron ruling expand the courts powers.
The SCOTUS has basically constructed for itself a veto over any action the executive branch can take. While they can't be proactive, they have essentially positioned themselves as a filter, able to rubber stamp any conservative initiative they desire and stop any liberal or left-wing one they dislike.
This is why people were warning everyone that the court had become illegitimate for years before this happened. It was clear that this is what the federalist society wanted from the start. Since courts are not elected, they've essentially created a node of conservative power completely immune to the will of the people.
Gloves off. Pack the Court. Thirteen?
Maybe as a short term solution, but I prefer a random selection method as a longer term fix.
What I'd like to know is, in light of what has happened with that and otherwise recently, if people still feel that the idea of "court packing," in the form of adding additional justices to the Supreme Court, was such a bad one after all. There is ample room for debate on that in both directions, but it seems to be a worthy discussion as to whether so much power and authority belong in the hands of just nine people who have essentially lifelong job security with no accountability. (Looking at you in particular here, Clarence.)
I think court packing is a suboptimal solution, but I'd take it over the status quo.
In my mind, the real solution is to empanel each SCOTUS case with nine randomly selected circuit court judges. That way new appointments can't radically alter the partisan makeup of the court.
Also create provisions to prevent a judge from hearing a case they've already decided, and strict ethics and recusal standards.
I wasn’t for it before but over the last few years I realized that my idea (very much Biden’s) of economic populism could slow down Trumpism was wrong and we need structural reform (more states, more justices, no filibuster). The problem is that doesn’t resonate with people. At least I don’t think so
As long as Congress remains in gridlock you are absolutely correct. If Congress wrote clear regulations, it would be more difficult or impossible for the Scotus to overrule.
If Congress can bestir itself, it could declare Chevron deference the law of the land and I wonder what the court would do with that.
Texas AG challenges the bill, gets co-signers from a bunch of other red state AGs, and the SCOTUS rules the bill unconstitutional by a vote of 6-3.
Until we reform the court, there is no guarantee that any other reform will stick.
Millenial:
Correct!
The Court has fashioned "for itself a veto over any action the executive branch can take."
And more!
We have the historic precedent of Bush v Gore (2000) to license the Court to pull the rug out from under a winning presidential candidate in a contested post-election.
\Vince S