A question about the US Gov't...

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

Liberals are unable to discuss issues.

...says the guy who can't address any issue without plagiarising someone else in order to do so.

You're guilty of the most obvious hypocrisy. And you're too stupid to see it.

 

[Sean]

Yes, the Congress of the United States and the people.

According to the scenario posited by the OP, Congress is controlled by the same party the control the SCOTUS.

 

[Luk]

Says the heroin addict and alcoholic.

Thank you for proving my point.

Liberals are unable to discuss issues. Instead, they resort to namecalling, insults, finger pointing, and of course BLAME BUSH!

Do you even read your own posts?

 

[zipman]

Thank you for proving my point.

Liberals are unable to discuss issues. Instead, they resort to namecalling, insults, finger pointing, and of course BLAME BUSH!

You need to have a point before it can be proved.

The threadstarter went to great lengths to ask a question about how the US government works without attributing any partisan issues to it. And yet, you jumped right into your typical kneejerk liberal-bashing C&P mode rather than actually commenting on his legitimate question.

And for the record, a discussion entails more than simply C&Ping a liberal-bashing argument. It starts with actually reading and comprehending the initial post, something you clearly are unable to do.

 

[Sean]

Do you even read your own posts?

Pretty much the first post he ever made was an attack on me and dolf.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

You need to have a point before it can be proved.

The threadstarter went to great lengths to ask a question about how the US government works without attributing any partisan issues to it. And yet, you jumped right into your typical kneejerk liberal-bashing C&P mode rather than actually commenting on his legitimate question.

And for the record, a discussion entails more than simply C&Ping a liberal-bashing argument. It starts with actually reading and comprehending the initial post, something you clearly are unable to do.

/thread for MeeMie.

Begin thread for anyone else answering the OP.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

I can't see the quote, are you referring to me?

Nope, I was talking about your c+p addicted compadre.

 

[zipman]

Yes, the Congress of the United States and the people.

That's incorrect. Neither the Congress or the people can prevent SCOTUS from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting the constitution. SCOTUS cannot throw out the constitution as it does not have that power.

Congress could correct the above situation through impeachment hearings but they cannot prevent them from occurring.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

I can't see the quote, are you referring to me?

"Live like you got a pair"

 

[horgasm]

So, after sifting through the arguments, and finding some actual answers, the answer seems to be: "There's nothing that could be done. We're fucked. "
The SCOTUS could make a purely partisan decision on the constitutionality of pretty much any law, and a partisan Congress would go along with it, and would defend the party by not impeaching any of the judges. The partisan President would support this party line.

I'd like to think that the citizens of the US would vote this down with Congressional and Presidential elections, but the Nike Party would be pretty well entrenched by the end of any elected term, and could just sue for the Presidency (see 2000, with no discussion of the quality of the decision) and the SCOTUS would put the Nike Candidate into office. Or, there are numerous other ways to guarantee a Nike Party victory (changing voting regulations, allowing or disallowing certain groups to vote, counting votes more than others, etc.)

 

[zipman]

So, after sifting through the arguments, and finding some actual answers, the answer seems to be: "There's nothing that could be done. We're fucked. "
The SCOTUS could make a purely partisan decision on the constitutionality of pretty much any law, and a partisan Congress would go along with it, and would defend the party by not impeaching any of the judges. The partisan President would support this party line.

I'd like to think that the citizens of the US would vote this down with Congressional and Presidential elections, but the Nike Party would be pretty well entrenched by the end of any elected term, and could just sue for the Presidency (see 2000, with no discussion of the quality of the decision) and the SCOTUS would put the Nike Candidate into office. Or, there are numerous other ways to guarantee a Nike Party victory (changing voting regulations, allowing or disallowing certain groups to vote, counting votes more than others, etc.)

That's probably the single most important reason I voted for Obama. Otherwise the republicans would been able to stack the supreme court with conservatives that would have lasted for decades.

 

[zipman]

"Live like you got a pair"

Yeah, he does that by putting everyone who argues with him on ignore.

His "balls" are the size of ball bearings!

 

[Weird Harold]

Let's say it's 2060. The Nike Party (so named because much of their platform involves sneakers. Either way, the political parties have become extremely polarized and partisan in all their votes. ) has seized control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. At the same time, a number of the Supreme Court justices have recently retired or passed away, allowing the Nike Party President to appoint a staggering 5 justices to the Supreme Court. The Nike Party now has overwhelming control of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government.

Is there anything that would prevent the Supreme Court from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting or just plain throwing out the Constitution?

It is remotely possible for such an"overwhelming control" of all three branches of government to come about; In fact Robert A Heinlein predicts exactly such a scenario in his Future History novels and short stories.

In the real world, FDR tried to pack the supreme court and bring about a one party rule, but the justices he appointed turned out to be justices first and cronies last; declaring many of the New Deal legislations unconstituional.

The system is designed to make your scenario very unlikely, though.

 

[MeeMie]

... didn't have a misspelling of a word like "great," had to be Googled.

You think that I don't know how to spell "great"? Seriously?

It never crossed your mind that it was a typo?

 

[Weird Harold]

I'd like to think that the citizens of the US would vote this down with Congressional and Presidential elections, but the Nike Party would be pretty well entrenched by the end of any elected term, and could just sue for the Presidency (see 2000, with no discussion of the quality of the decision) and the SCOTUS would put the Nike Candidate into office. Or, there are numerous other ways to guarantee a Nike Party victory (changing voting regulations, allowing or disallowing certain groups to vote, counting votes more than others, etc.)

The corruption and/or party fanaticism would have to extend far beyond just the Supreme Court in the Judicial Branch for an arbitrary ruling to throw out election results.

Staying entrenched beyond two years would be difficult because of the mid-term election cycle for Representatives and Senators without a very deep -- fanatical -- support for the Nike Party goals in the general populace. In order for your scenario of absolute control by a single party to happen, there would have to be a near religious fervor like that which led to the passage and ratification of Prohibition. Even that great tide of morality ebbed and Prohibition was repealed when it did.

 

[MeeMie]

It is remotely possible for such an"overwhelming control" of all three branches of government to come about;

We're close to that now with a Loonie in the White House, Loonie Majority in Congress and two Loonie Supreme Court Judges appointed.

Hopefully, the damage can be limited before the real changes in November.

If any good has come from the past year and a half, it is the lesson of NEVER EVER allowing a Loonie Majority in the White House, the Senate and the House. The damage done already will cost freedom, jobs and safety for decades to come.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Let's say it's 2060. The Nike Party (so named because much of their platform involves sneakers. Either way, the political parties have become extremely polarized and partisan in all their votes. ) has seized control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. At the same time, a number of the Supreme Court justices have recently retired or passed away, allowing the Nike Party President to appoint a staggering 5 justices to the Supreme Court. The Nike Party now has overwhelming control of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government.

Is there anything that would prevent the Supreme Court from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting or just plain throwing out the Constitution?

Just one hundred million gun owners.

 

[horgasm]

That's another question. WOULD Americans rise up against a government like that? Would enough of us give enough of a shit to lay down our lives for it?

 

[Byron In Exile]

That's another question. WOULD Americans rise up against a government like that? Would enough of us give enough of a shit to lay down our lives for it?

That depends on facts that are missing from your scenario. Is the Nike Party conducting some sort of stealth campaign, promising rainbows and lollipops in order to take over the government, and then breaking out the worms and spiders once they have a lock on it? Or are they being up-front, and their totalitarian views an overwhelming hit with the American people?

Because in the latter case, there would be no need to worry about the Supreme Court. The US Constitution can be changed whenever two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the State legislatures agree that it should be. If the peoples' enthusiasm for an authoritarian government and surrendering the legal protection of their rights were so great, it would not be difficult to simply delete all the Amendments, revise what parts guarantee anything to any individual citizen, abolish Congress, and have the President rule by decree.

 

[Weird Harold]

We're close to that now with a Loonie in the White House, Loonie Majority in Congress and two Loonie Supreme Court Judges appointed.

Hopefully, the damage can be limited before the real changes in November.

If any good has come from the past year and a half, it is the lesson of NEVER EVER allowing a Loonie Majority in the White House, the Senate and the House. The damage done already will cost freedom, jobs and safety for decades to come.

We were a LOT closer when FDR was in charge. Or when GWB was in charge, for that matter.

If GWB couldn't manage to become "King George the First" as he so desperately wanted to, I doubt that BHO will be able to.

 

[Liar]

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

Modern liberals like the people who view the 14th amendment as an obstacle in their fight against illegal immigration and gay marriage?