The New York congresswoman said that the justices' refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases “constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law.”
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to.
The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court.
Aka the supreme Court has no army
at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court.
One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.
The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they’re supposed to represent.
While technically accurate, you’re making the mootest of points.
If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I’m replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.
I agree that Republicans likely wouldn’t go along with this today in real life. One can dream
Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch.
Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc.
One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted.
But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn’t assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.
They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can’t be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.
So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can’t they just dismiss the case with prejudice?
In theory. In actuality the court takes the laws Congress passes than reinterpretsbit to allow ridiculous things that weren’t intended; like corporate personhood.
This is where the phrase ‘activist judges’ stems from
No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.
“We think the intent of this ‘Impeach These Clowns Act’ was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority.”
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army
One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.
The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they’re supposed to represent.
While technically accurate, you’re making the mootest of points.
If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I’m replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.
I agree that Republicans likely wouldn’t go along with this today in real life. One can dream
Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them
…for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don’t see the flaw in that plan?
Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch. Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc. One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted. But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn’t assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.
They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can’t be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.
So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can’t they just dismiss the case with prejudice?
Impeachment isn’t a criminal process, it’s a political one, the same rules don’t apply.
In theory. In actuality the court takes the laws Congress passes than reinterpretsbit to allow ridiculous things that weren’t intended; like corporate personhood.
This is where the phrase ‘activist judges’ stems from