- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
In Trump v. United States (2024) …
That is the most accurate possible name for the supreme court’s recent decision.
deleted by creator
It’s a pretty accurate description of the last 8 years TBH.
Senate shenanigans are always fun to read about.
Also, we learned that they’re “separate but equal” branches of government in school. Let’s see if the legislative branch can claw back some level of influence.
deleted by creator
Oy, of course you’re right 😅
“Coequal” I think was the term I remember learning.
deleted by creator
like what?
deleted by creator
…we learned that they’re “separate but equal” branches of government in school.
Samsies. But then again, I don’t think normal people (our founders included) ever expected a willful collusion by a party to stack those branches of government in their favor.
deleted by creator
Thank you for pointing that out. It is an important distinction that carries a lot of weight for a lot of people.
deleted by creator
The founders didn’t intend for the SCOTUS to be an equal branch of government. They just kinda started doing constitutional review, and multiple founders were explicit about how that’s not what they intended.
More like our founders would be shocked that we haven’t rewritten the Constitution yet, and horrified that centuries later we’re treating it like some divine scripture
There are multiple mechanisms in there to modify or even rewrite the whole thing. They totally saw this coming, they were pretty vocal about it. They hoped future generations would build on their work, not enshrine it
So now introducing bills and doing their fucking jobs is “ambitious?” These sucker’s make like $200k just in base salary and are the most unproductive decade of Congress I think ever.
It’s good to be king. Get paid to do nothing.
The Constitutional Amendment is more bulletproof, but a much heavier lift.
This one will end up at SCOTUS, with an expected outcome. Slow moving trains and all.
The Court wouldn’t have jurisdiction. They could overstep their authority anyway but it’d probably become a constitutional crisis.
As opposed to the other times in recent memory that they overstepped their authority, lied about the facts, and rewrote laws and the constitution?
Lying about the facts and rewriting laws isn’t legally prohibited. This is different because it would be the Supreme Court breaking the law if it viewed a case outside its jurisdiction… or, well, it could be different. It depends on whether the other two branches of government just roll over and let them do it. If Schumer is willing to use jurisdictional stripping the Democrats might be willing to go even farther if the Court decided to ignore the law. Hence, constitutional crisis.
Vox Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: Vox Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.Earlier this week, President Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Trump
Lol
That’d require a forklift.
Get it to the floor and make them all vote on the record. That vote will haunt them in the post-Trump era. May even help shoot down some rising stars down the line.
From what I’ve seen others state, the plan is for the Republicans to lose, then enough politicians call foul play that it goes to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court lets the politicians pick and they override the will of the people. So it wouldn’t haunt them in that case
I think you’re right that this is the high level game plan, but it does require them to be in spitting distance of a win vs. blatantly overturning an obvious loss. The past week or so feels more hopeful than normal they won’t manage that (but it’s not too late for a procession of October Surprises)
Couldn’t they FOIA the judges’ financial records, and if money came from Trumps mafia, associate it to the conflict of interest around the ruling?
Then the ruling could be argued invalid because of alleged bribery.
This is a good move. Thrg just need to be careful to preclude somehow giving an opening for the court to hear it via original jurisdiction. Congress can only limit the court’s appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution.
