The attempt to Usurp the supreme Court will fail.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The USSC is not subservient to Congress.

Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So what?

 

[Cellblock2429]

So what?

/—-/ So, Lame Duck Joe is just blowing smoke about reforming the USSC. That’s what.

 

[kyzr]

Don’t they have the power to impeach them?

Yes with a simple majority in the House but a 2/3 majority in the senate. A very high bar for removal. Not happening.

 

[Marener]

Yes with a simple majority in the House but a 2/3 majority in the senate. A very high bar for removal. Not happening.

Seems like they do have some authority over SCOTUS then.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Seems like they do have some authority over SCOTUS then.

/---/ Congress has limited authority, but not complete. Just like the police have limited authority over you but not carte blanche.

 

[j-mac]

So you agree with Nixon ... the President is above the Law ... and above the Law forevermore ...

That precept applies to justices as well ... judges can take all the bribes they want to, they're above the law ... in fact all lawyers are above the law, at worst they get the license revoked ... and isn't every government employee exempt now in their official duties? ...

Qualified immunity ... yeah ... government can do whatever it wants to ... laws are only for the people ... a vote for Trump is never having to vote every again, cool beans, I hate elections ... long past time to be done with them ... c'mon Christians, vote for the Whoremonger-in-Chief ...

The fact that it sounds as if your life will be destroyed if Trump wins, is just more reason to vote for him…

 

[j-mac]

Seems like they do have some authority over SCOTUS then.

No, it’s a check and balance…Something you want to do away with.

 

[Marener]

No, it’s a check and balance…Something you want to do away with.

I prefer having more checks on power. Conservatives seem to want to discard as many as possible.

 

[j-mac]

I prefer having more checks on power. Conservatives seem to want to discard as many as possible.

Yet, everything you argue for is in favor of unchecked dem power… Weird.

 

[kyzr]

Seems like they do have some authority over SCOTUS then.

Same authority they have over the president. A very high bar to remove either.

 

[Marener]

Yet, everything you argue for is in favor of unchecked dem power… Weird.

How is arguing that presidents be able to be prosecuted for violating the law making them “unchecked”?

How is holding SCOTUS judges to an ethical conduct code “unchecked”?

 

[j-mac]

How is arguing that presidents be able to be prosecuted for violating the law making them “unchecked”?

How is holding SCOTUS judges to an ethical conduct code “unchecked”?

You only believe that when republicans are the target…

 

[Marener]

You only believe that when republicans are the target…

I believe that people who break the law are the target. It just so happens that Trump and his cronies like to break the law.

The vast majority of Republicans don’t have any interest or inclination to do so.

 

[j-mac]

I believe that people who break the law are the target. It just so happens that Trump and his cronies like to break the law.

The vast majority of Republicans don’t have any interest or inclination to do so.

You’ve bought into a false narrative…not my problem

 

[Marener]

You’ve bought into a false narrative…not my problem

What’s false, exactly?

Your false narrative is that I don’t want the law to apply to democratic elected officials. I do. I think it’s a good thing that presidents consider the repercussions of their actions. It seems to be an important check on their power.