• WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Despite the actual structure of the Constitution and all of its amendments, the Supreme Court, as an institution, has fought to exceed the limits of its constitutional power from the very beginning. Its ruling in Loper Bright is only its latest and most brazen move to set itself up as the ultimate and final authority in the nation. As I said, the appropriate historical context for its ruling today is not 1984 and its Chevrondecision but its 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison. It was then, back when the country was still in its swaddling blankets, that the Supreme Court declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the power to decide what is or is not constitutional was not given to the court in the Constitution or by any of the amendments. The court decided for itself that it had the power to revoke acts of Congress and declare actions by the president “unconstitutional,” and the elected branches went along with it. The Supreme Court was never supposed to have this much power

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Tbf it is difficult to uphold the constitution in another way. For instance, if Congress passes a bill that contradicts the constitution you have a contradiction. How else, than through courts, would you resolve the contradiction?

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Biden could make a presidential address during prime time to declare a general strike until his demands are met.

          We need to start thinking of extra-legal and post-electoral means of effecting change.

        • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.