PoliticsGirl: There's nothing in the Constitution that says SCOTUS is the final word on what's constitutional

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

PoliticsGirl
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court is the final word on what’s constitutional. They gave themselves that power with the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. Maybe it’s time we re-litigate the precedent of “judicial review” Sam.

Captain Obvious™️
Samuel Alito: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says a woman has the right to an abortion.”

Well, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a former president has full immunity from prosecution.

🤔

[grumpyduck]

1. Hey, Sam,

is there anything in there that says she doesn't?

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Which Is Really The Point

Many of the amendments are prohibitions on the government. It enumerates what they can't do.
So, there are tons of things people should be free to do that aren't enumerated.
They don't need to be in the constitution.

[Delmette2.0]

37. There is nothing in the Constitution that recognizes

women for anything!

It was a man's world and right now they want full control back.
But, we are not going back!!

[RidinWithHarris]

2. But if not the SCOTUS, who or what?

It's awful for the current corrupt SCOTUS to have the power of the final word on what is or isn't constitutional, but if that's not the system, what would be?

[tinrobot]

4. Tough question. What do other countries do on the issue of constitutionality?

[Nasruddin]

10. That's a really good question

Another question you might ask is, what problems has the Supreme Court solved, as opposed to ones it has created or amplified?

Maybe we could just do without it.

An interesting example is the German system, which has multiple supreme courts for various areas (laws, taxes) and a constitutional court that probably covers a lot of the topic area that we are concerned with in this discussion (US Supreme Court has broad mandate in many areas). The selection / management of the judicial body is also interesting to look at.

About how other countries deal with constitutions, that seems to be a complex topic. UK famously lacks a single concise document. German constitution appears longer and more complex than ours. How rigidly, or what theories, these countries use to apply their constitutions I don't know at all.

[madinmaryland]

12. The congress and the states can change/amend the constitution to

Rectify anything the SCOTUS defines the constitution as saying.

[markodochartaigh]

13. Apparently

Congress can include wording in the bills that they (the representatives elected by the people) pass that says that "this bill is not subject to judicial review."

[RidinWithHarris]

33. If that actually would work Congress could way too easily violate our constitutional rights

So, regardless of how much awfulness of the current SCOTUS I'd like to see reversed, I can't imagine that would fly as a way to do it. The downside of that power is extremely negative.

[markodochartaigh]

35. Personally I would rather have the power in

the hands of 535 elected officials than in the hands of 9 unelected officials.

[RidinWithHarris]

36. Not me. That power would only require 267 of those 535 to want to fuck us over

...plus a President willing to sign on to stealing our rights, a situation which has already existed way, way too many times in our history.

[Mysterian]

34. Yeah, no.

That's not how it works.

[Codifer]

29. Present system should work.

And has worked well in the past. There is naught wrong with the basic system.

The nature of the society is the tell. We, as a society, have become corrupt and the interpretation of the Rule of Law has become corrupt. The driver of these corruptions is enormous greed which has given rise to the most massive pools of wealth/power the world has ever seen. New territory.

Very hard to reverse that.

I hope that the above makes some sense. My morning ritual puff has settled gently in but at least, I hope, more coherent than tsf.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Chuck Schumer rolls out 'No Kings Act' to eliminate presidential immunity

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS and this act would reverse the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity and restrict the court's jurisdiction

Link to tweet

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/chuck-schumer-remove-presidential-immunity-trump-rcna164618

The legislation, dubbed the "No Kings Act," would ensure that neither sitting nor former presidents and vice presidents are entitled to immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes. The bill has more than two dozen Democratic signers.

If it is passed, the legislation would make it clear that Congress has the power to determine “to whom federal criminal laws may be applied," not the Supreme Court, according to the bill's outline provided by Schumer's office.

In his statement explaining his reasoning for the legislation, Schumer called the Supreme Court's decision about Trump's immunity "disastrous," arguing that "the Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law."

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion for the court that lower courts needed to determine through additional proceedings what Trump could face prosecution for.

[Marcuse]

7. Republicans will rush to embrace Shumer's No Kings (or Queens) Act after Kamala wins.

[Kid Berwyn]

17. Z'at Guy Fawkes?

Even if not, I appreciate the thoughtful countenance.

[wnylib]

24. It is King Charles I of England who quite literally

lost his head over asserting absolute power as king. Parliament disagreed, triggering a civil war and the trial and beheading of Charles I.

[Kid Berwyn]

39. Thank you! The English speaking peoples have such a complicated history.

But cutting through the Gordian knot of it all is the fact that in the United States of America all people are created equal and are equal under the law. First the kings didn't like it. Then the slave-owners didn't like it. And now slave-masters of Big Money don't like it.

I like the idea that no man is above the law. That includes the likes of Trump, DeVos/Prince, Musk and Thiel.

[Marcuse]

38. Meet King Charles I. He was subject to a previous No Kings act.

[Kid Berwyn]

40. The royals really like to play up that appointed by the Creator stuff.

Many if not most of them seem to believe it, based on the way they treat the Others they consider their "inferiors."

Take what was the Belgian Congo, today the Democratic Republic of Congo, once a possession of the king and then a colony of Belgium. Big bucks were made simply by taking or looting or extracting the minerals right from under the dead feet of the people who just had happened to live there. Big Oil has operated in a similar fashion transnationally ever since the CIA was new to the Dulles Brothers, the Bush family and Brown Brothers Harriman.

I loathe the idea that any one is my superior. Furthermore, I loathe its corollary, the idea that I consider myself superior to any one else. That doesn't mean I won't knock the teeth out of a NAZI, no matter their lifestyle, bank account or reputation as a philanthropist, when I see one.

[Seinan Sensei]

42. All Believers believe the Bible

Except when they don't
All good Believers know Romans 13:1 when a Rethug is President:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.

But they conveniently overlook this verse when the "authority" is a Democrat

Or when that "authority" is a Vice President they do not like

[ReRe]

32. Perhaps

we need another law or possibly an amendment to this "No Kings Act" which deals with Presidential candidates
who won't concede when they lose an election.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Yet SCOTUS will have the final say on that.

Even if they disagree.

OK. Now it gets complicated.

[Shipwack]

9. How many divisions does the Supreme Court command? nt

[FakeNoose]

14. After November - when Chump loses decisively - it won't be much of an issue

Just sayin'

[Happy Hoosier]

6. Not a fan of this argument.

We just need a boost in checks and balances. And some judicial reform.

[TBF]

8. At a minimum, and expanding the court is a great idea too. nt

[FakeNoose]

30. I'd like to see a new regulation about the Presidential appointments

... to the effect that "no President is allowed to appoint more than 1 SCOTUS Justice per term in office." So if a President gets re-elected he/she can make a 2nd appointment in their 2nd term. If they don't get re-elected, no additional appointments permitted. A rule like THAT would have prevented Chump's disaster.

[erronis]

45. That might leave the court with empty seats for a long period.

Of course, since Thomas and Alito are getting up there and apparently like to dine on very "fine" fare, perhaps they'll be the first to go.

[FakeNoose]

46. They've operated with less than full count before

... I don't see that as a problem.

It cuts down on the Justices who hold off retiring so that they can be replaced by the President of their choice. That's how Chump got 2 picks, and then Justice Ginsberg passed away.

In the previous eight years, how many SCOTUS selections did Obama get to make?

[surfered]

11. The emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but it's ignored.

[BattleRow]

15. Does the Constitution say that she

doesn't have the right?

[moonshinegnomie]

16. I've said this before

The Supreme Court has no actual ability to enforce their rulings. Enforcement is a function of the executive branch

[Joinfortmill]

18. Love this!

[3825-87867]

19. If members of SCOTUS are removed by "Official Act" as of now...

new members could change the rulings and congress could then pass a law no president is immune by law saving the discussion for future debates.

[3825-87867]

22. And again, the Constitution does NOT grant lifetime tenure

to those Justices. We know they CAN be impeached, but with presidential immunity an official act, such as concern over qualification or partisanship, might have the power to remove one or more. Then fight it out later.

[former9thward]

20. So relitigate Marbury.

See how it turns out.

[sarchasm]

21. KnR!

[RANDYWILDMAN]

23. Everytime Roberts...

I think he Can't go any lower, he proves me wrong

[Farmer-Rick]

25. I've been saying this for years

I'm surprised this post doesn't get more rabid attacks. I've posted this exact same issue, and you would think I had asked everyone to get rid of their pets or something.

Anyway, the Supremes have taken on more power than was given them in the US Constitution.

If you took away their power to review for Constitutionality, they would be just like any other court. They would review laws and disputes between states. Whatever is laid out in the Constitution for them to do.

Also there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives Supreme Court Justices lifetime appointments. They gave themselves that too.

They are only there as long as they “hold their office during good behavior,” as the Constitution says. Doesn't sound like lifetime appointments to me.

The legislative branch has the power to determine what good behavior is and can and should impeach them.

[FakeNoose]

28. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you can recall back to the early-mid 60's

The same thing was said about the SCOTUS then - only it was the ultra-conservatives who thought Chief Justice Earl Warren was off his rocker. The difference between then and now is that the SCOTUS justices under Warren weren't playing politics, they were righting the racial wrongs of earlier generations. In some cases they might have overstepped, but that has been corrected in later rulings.

This set of SCOTUS justices (the cons I mean) are just playing "tit-for-tat." Also some are secretly playing "what's in it for me" - only that wasn't supposed to become common knowledge. The Federalist puppet masters are running the show, the Justices are just dancing like they've been taught.

[republianmushroom]

26. Don't believe there is anything in the Constitution that says

a seated president cannot be charged with a crime while in office.
43 months and counting (includes foot dragging)

[-misanthroptimist]

27. Statements like Alito's betray a fundamental misinterpretation...

...and it's probably a willful misinterpretation.

The 9th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the People retain all kinds of Rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. So, the standard shouldn't be "Where does the Constitution grant that Right?" The correct standard should be "Where in the Constitution is that Power delegated to government?"

It is patently obvious that Government is nowhere delegated the Power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Alito, and those like him, either are liars who manipulate the Constitution to get their own way or ignoramuses. Neither has any business interpreting the Constitution.

[V850i]

41. SC usurped the power to amend the Constitution

Congress or at least Schumer and President Biden should say that they connect recognize this decision as it is an extralegal amendment to the Constitution.

[Clouds Passing]

43. This is what the criminal USSC6 fear most! They know they do not have the constitution on their side.

[mucholderthandirt]

44. My opinion is that the Fourth covers a woman's right to control her own body, thus abortion is her choice.

Making a law against women that is solely based on any particular religious belief is not constitutional. It should be reinstated right now, and all states' laws infringing upon a woman's right to choose are therefore repealed. Any doctor who let's a woman suffer, even die, because they fear for themselves should be stripped of their license and imprisoned for murder, or attempted murder.

Why people aren't in the streets over this, instead of worrying about Trump's MAGA idiots is beyond me. Some good lawyer should be appealing the decision on the grounds of separation of church and state. We are a secular country, no matter how hard some people argue we aren't. We are not a nation found on the Bible, the founding fathers made that clear. We follow democratic principles, and there's no religion in those.