Checks and Balance on The Court

[Pad_Foot]

If the court can’t monitor itself then it’s up the House and the the Senate to remove them irregardless of them ruling that bribery doesn’t exist.

At least two members of our highest court have accepted “gifts” it’s the House’s duty to determine if those gifts are bribes. It’s not the Court’s call to discipline itself. The Founding Fathers made sure of this. All their crap about Presidents and immunity also take backseat to impeachment

Rainey, of Il- linois, ruled as follows: That is a constitutional question which the Chair cannot pass upon, but should be passed upon by the House. Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution defines the grounds for impeachment and conviction as ''treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Then? They make bribery legal for all politicians? They need to go!

The Greek government did the same for themselves to avoid being investigated for bribes that led to all of the financial problems in Greece. Very convenient.
One of their German bribers at Siemens jumped off a bridge. Also convenient

No one in THIS country is above the LAW. The Constitution is the supreme law. The Supreme Court can’t create legislation!
Shit the”legislated” the meaning of emoluments and insurrection.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good luck!

 

[jaF0]

I've laid out my plans for restructuring the Nine a few times here. But there's always been a hole of how to make sure rulings don't go astray. How do the checks balance?

So, how about ratification? This would have to be completed within 60 days of the ruling.

Not for all rulings, but for rulings of significant consequence, Hobby Lo0bby, Citizen's United, Roe/Dobbs, Immunity, bribery, et al.

Maybe by Congress .... a majority of members of each chamber.

Maybe by the Governors ... a majority of the states. Maybe include the territories since rulings affect them also.

Maybe some combination of both.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Obviously the only solution to your problem is to start another thread on the PB.

 

[Rightguide]

If the court can’t monitor itself then it’s up the House and the the Senate to remove them irregardless of them ruling that bribery doesn’t exist.

At least two members of our highest court have accepted “gifts” it’s the House’s duty to determine if those gifts are bribes. It’s not the Court’s call to discipline itself. The Founding Fathers made sure of this. All their crap about Presidents and immunity also take backseat to impeachment

Rainey, of Il- linois, ruled as follows: That is a constitutional question which the Chair cannot pass upon, but should be passed upon by the House. Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution defines the grounds for impeachment and conviction as ''treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Then? They make bribery legal for all politicians? They need to go!

The Greek government did the same for themselves to avoid being investigated for bribes that led to all of the financial problems in Greece. Very convenient.
One of their German bribers at Siemens jumped off a bridge. Also convenient

No one in THIS country is above the LAW. The Constitution is the supreme law. The Supreme Court can’t create legislation!
Shit the”legislated” the meaning of emoluments and insurrection.

You have to prove bribery. So give it a try.

 

[HisArpy]

3 co-equal branches of government.

Just sayin'...

 

[Chernosoth]

I've laid out my plans for restructuring the Nine a few times here. But there's always been a hole of how to make sure rulings don't go astray. How do the checks balance?

So, how about ratification? This would have to be completed within 60 days of the ruling.

Not for all rulings, but for rulings of significant consequence, Hobby Lo0bby, Citizen's United, Roe/Dobbs, Immunity, bribery, et al.

Maybe by Congress .... a majority of members of each chamber.

Maybe by the Governors ... a majority of the states. Maybe include the territories since rulings affect them also.

Maybe some combination of both.

The president could appoint you moderator of SCOTUS.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

You do not understand the underpinnings of the Constitution and the balance of powers.


This leaves a discussion impossible, so I will let you bull your way through the topic sans waved red cape...

 

[JoePepsiCo]

If you wish to control the judiciary, you must win elections and to do that, you must win the majority and that means you need messaging better than, "this doesn't work for me, so bring in the wrecking ball and let's dismantle it by force if necessary."

 

[HisArpy]

The president could appoint you moderator of SCOTUS.

What's the over/under on how quickly "moderator" become "master"?

 

[MajorRewrite]

How to fix the corrupted Supreme Court. Two experts discuss.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Define "corrupt."

Objectively

 

[MajorRewrite]

Define "corrupt."

Objectively

They detail the corruption in the video. You ought to watch. It’s enlightening.

Senator Whitehouse’s suggestions for improvements aren’t radical in any way.

 

[Pad_Foot]

I have to catch up on my own thread? Cool

Let’s get to 50-50 men and women on the court.
Oh.. we are there sort of already??
Hmmm? That leaves one tie breaker! They can break the tie.

 

[Pad_Foot]

First?? Stop the bribery and corruption !!!
Then move on!!

13 makes total sense !!

 

[Politruk]

3 co-equal branches of government.

Just sayin'...

By no means. Three AUTONOMOUS branches. They can be insulated from the others' political control -- but they never could be equal in power or importance. The executive is always necessarily the most important branch, the legislature second, the judiciary third. Even in a parliamentary system, the executive is more important than parliament.

 

[HisArpy]

By no means. Three AUTONOMOUS branches. They can be insulated from the others' political control -- but they never could be equal in power or importance. The executive is always necessarily the most important branch, the legislature second, the judiciary third. Even in a parliamentary system, the executive is more important than parliament.

Lol, somebody's already showing themselves to be a dumfuk.

The branches of our government aren't "autonomous." They act and interact with each of the other branches according to their function under the Constitution. No branch is above the other and none is "more important" than the other 2.

This is what "co equal" means.

 

[ll74]

By no means. Three AUTONOMOUS branches. They can be insulated from the others' political control -- but they never could be equal in power or importance. The executive is always necessarily the most important branch, the legislature second, the judiciary third. Even in a parliamentary system, the executive is more important than parliament.

The thread was dead.

 

[Politruk]

Lol, somebody's already showing themselves to be a dumfuk.

The branches of our government aren't "autonomous." They act and interact with each of the other branches according to their function under the Constitution. No branch is above the other and none is "more important" than the other 2.

This is what "co equal" means.

The Constitution does not make them "co equal," only separate.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Good luck!

Poor fucker can't read the Constitution it seems.

 

[HisArpy]

The Constitution does not make them "co equal," only separate.

Article I actually makes them "equal" by saying that there shall be 3 branches of government.

They are not, strictly speaking, separate as each controls some of the functions of the other.


Congress cannot delegate its powers and can, through its ability to fashion laws, control the actions of both the judicial and the executive.

The Executive can only administer the laws passed by Congress, but by its power of the veto, can put a check on the ability of Congress to overreach.

The Judicial, through the Supreme Court established by the Constitution and the inferior courts, determines if the actions of the other 2 branches are lawful. Congress, through its control of funding, establishing inferior courts, and creating laws, can check the Judicial branch.

They are NOT "separate," they are co-equal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

3 co-equal branches of government.

Just sayin'...

The recent trend of the USSC "legislating from the bench" makes a mockery of the word "co-equal"

 

[HisArpy]

The recent trend of the USSC "legislating from the bench" makes a mockery of the word "co-equal"

This is your personal opinion, not fact. The job of SCOTUS is to check the other branches to ensure the nation, and it's people, obey the laws. It's not to create "Rights" where none exist. Dobbs corrected that error whereby the earlier court did exactly that in violation of their powers and authority.

So, if there was any "legislating from the bench" it wasn't the Roberts court doing it. For that you can thank Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Blackmun.

Honestly rubbery, you need to get a clue and stop the shitpisting.

 

[Politruk]

The recent trend of the USSC "legislating from the bench" makes a mockery of the word "co-equal"

That is the common-law tradition. The law has been made by judges for a thousand years. Judges were legislating from the bench for centuries before England even had such thing as a Parliament. This is NOT something that can ever be taken out of our system.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That is the common-law tradition. The law has been made by judges for a thousand years. Judges were legislating from the bench for centuries before England even had such thing as a Parliament. This is NOT something that can ever be taken out of our system.

Reasoning akin to "if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it".

Just because they CAN do it, doesn't mean they SHOULD do it, and the USSC has by and large somehow refrained from doing this for most of our nation's history.

The current 6-3 majority has made a mockery of the concept of "stare decisis" (i.e. precedence) and seems to enjoy arbitrarily changing laws to meet their own whims. Particularly Alito....Alito has been attempting to discard any and all precedence from the moment his got his robes.