If it already wasn't, The Supreme Court Is Now On The Ballot.

[Curried Goats]

No. That is a check on abuses of the court.
Cannot have one without the other. Three co-equal branches that each check the powers of the others

Genius isn't it?

Define abuses? The Dred Scott decision was a shit decision but did it represent an abuse of the court's authority? And are you so ignorant of history that you don't know the 13th and 14th Amendments over rode it? All decisions by the court can be counter acted with new legislation and that new legislation will become law and be used until it's challenged back to the Supreme Court where they can do their thing and back and forth we go. Laws by Congress and decisions by the Court are never the end of the discussion in our political system.

 

[Curried Goats]

exactly what I said, your reading comprehension is marginal at best.

I read you say the Supreme Court was self regulating. Did you mean for self regulating to mean and Congress too?

 

[Redfish]

He just needs 3/4 of the States to go along with this Constitutional Amendment

never gonna happen

 

[ozro]

Define abuses? The Dred Scott decision was a shit decision but did it represent an abuse of the court's authority? And are you so ignorant of history that you don't know the 13th and 14th Amendments over rode it? All decisions by the court can be counter acted with new legislation and that new legislation will be come law and be used until it's challenged back to the Supreme Court where they can do their thing and back and forth we go. Laws by Congress and decisions by the Court are never the end of the discussion in our political systems.

The wheels of justice grind slow, but fine.
It took a terrible war with Democrats to change what the ussc recognized as the reality of the day.

 

[pknopp]

which SC court justice is taking bribes (that is what you are alleging isn't it). prove it if you can.

You understand the issue.

 

[pknopp]

Pack in 1,001 judges, 500 Left wing and 501 Right wing, or vice versa. It doesn't matter which way the vote goes, the losing side will still want to pack more judges in to get the decision they want. As for ethics, just simply no gifts can be accepted or you're out. Can a supreme court judge be impeached?

Why is it no one wants to address what I actually said?

 

[Redfish]

I read you say the Supreme Court was self regulating. Did you mean for self regulating to mean and Congress too?

the constitution is clear, 3 co-equal branches of government with checks and balances on each other, no branch is above the other 2. What you libs seem to want is for a partisan congress to rule over the supreme court. That is unconstitutional

 

[Curried Goats]

The wheels of justice grind slow, but fine.
It took a terrible war with Democrats to change what the ussc recognized as the reality of the day.

How about you talk arguments instead of clichés? I don't even know what point your trying to make.

 

[ozro]

How about you talk arguments instead of clichés? I don't even know what point your trying to make.

Because you are stupid. I can't help that you cannot understand. That's on you

 

[Curried Goats]

the constitution is clear, 3 co-equal branches of government with checks and balances on each other, no branch is above the other 2. What you libs seem to want is for a partisan congress to rule over the supreme court. That is unconstitutional

How so? How do I want Congress to rule over the court in a way that is unconstitutional?

 

[JWBooth]

the constitution is clear, 3 co-equal branches of government with checks and balances on each other, no branch is above the other 2. What you libs seem to want is for a partisan congress to rule over the supreme court. That is unconstitutional

The supremecy of the court in determining the meaning of the constitution is some John Marshall made up shit. As valid as Dred Scott.

 

[Redfish]

How so? How do I want Congress to rule over the court in a way that is unconstitutional?

you want to have congress enforce some kind of ethics code on the court, you want congress to be able to term limit or impeach justices that they don't like politically.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because you are stupid. I can't help that you cannot understand. That's on you

When you're intellectually superior you can help expose other posters emotional fragility however. Your inadequacies are all on you.

 

[Redfish]

The supremecy of the court in determining the meaning of the constitution is some John Marshall made up shit. As valid as Dred Scott.

except that the constitution gives them that charter.

 

[Curried Goats]

you want to have congress enforce some kind of ethics code on the court, you want congress to be able to term limit or impeach justices that they don't like politically.

Do they not have the authority to do so through the power of legislation? What's unconstitutional about it?

 

[ozro]

When you're intellectually superior you can help expose other posters emotional fragility however. Your inadequacies are all on you.

Whatever you want to think toby.
Enjoy your " mental superiority".

 

[Redfish]

Do they not have the authority to do so through the power of legislation? What's unconstitutional about it?

no, congress cannot unilaterally amend the constitution. I thought you knew that.

 

[Curried Goats]

Whatever you want to think toby.
Enjoy your " mental superiority".

I do. Trust me.

 

[ozro]

I do. Trust me.

Thanks for the laughs.
I love laughing at you.

 

[Curried Goats]

no, congress cannot unilaterally amend the constitution. I thought you knew that.

Who said anything about unilaterally amending the constitution? There's a process for amending the constitution that includes Congress and the constitution already grants them the authority to impeach.