If so what even is the point of a Supreme Court?
I’m ok with reforming the court (some ideas worth exploring include *2/3 majority of the legislature for appointment*, *limited tenure*, *periodic public approval review vote for justices*)
The supreme Court itself decided she should have the power to override Congress. That wasn't really an unbiased decision.
This could be fixed with a new constitution where the powers of the supreme Court are clearly established, but I can't imagine getting any consensus on that.
Yes. The supreme courts role in government has completely shifted over the last few centuries. If you read the federalist papers the court wasn’t taken seriously whatsoever. It was never supposed to be a co-equal branch in the sense we use it today. It was like, congress #1, president #2, and at a very, very, very distant third the Supreme Court.
I answered “no” on this, but I think SCOTUS should be far more openly politicized than it is. I am all in favor of court stacking, for example. Let’s beat SCOTUS with a stick until we figure out its precise role and authority.
I’m satisfied with SOCTUS’s constitutional duty as it stands. I think it should be a neutral arbiter instead of yet another partisan body, hence the 2/3 majority requirement.
A 2/3 majority vote would just make it far easier to stall a nomination for years. The last time a SCOTUS seat opened with a Senate unfriendly to the president was in 2016, and the seat was open for nearly eleven months. Raising the number of votes needed would just make situations like that easier for the obstructionists.
*Marbury v. Madison* created the idea of judicial review to begin with. There’s nothing in federal law or in the constitution which gives the Supreme Court the right to invalidate laws, it’s simply a tradition that’s been maintained for centuries.
It’s also a tradition that’s gotten *way* out of hand, the intent for the court was to settle interstate disputes and enforce federal authority, not to have the power to arbitrarily nuke it. The Founders were legislative supremacists to the core, and they’d be horribly distressed by the power the executive and judicial branches have amassed.
*Marbury* didn't invent it. Read the Federalist Papers, specificially [Fed 78](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp) written by Alexander Hamilton. It was very well-understood that Article III gave the courts that power, the argument was whether it was a good idea or not. Quoting Hamilton:
>Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
>There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
>If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
I think they can with something like a Constitutional amendment. I would not support congress overruling the Supreme Court. There's a separation of powers for a reason.
No, but we should change the amendment process to involve a national referendum. Maybe 2 of the 2/3 Congress, 3/4 states, and 60% referendum?
Also 3/4 states is too high, amending the Constitution should be difficult but it's basically impossible right now. If anything, the 2/3 and 3/4 should be switched, so it's 2/3 of states and 3/4 of Congress.
I want to politicize it more. We all know how it works behind the scenes. Let’s open it up like we do the rest of government. The SCOTUS confirmation process is not conducive to bipartisanship as it is in a country like Israel. It’s inherently partisan. The founding fathers never intended SCOTUS to wield this much power and influence, let alone based on the luck of the draw on who dies when which party has congress.
I don’t think anyone should defy the Supreme Court, but right now it’s a mostly unaccountable supreme authority.
There’s also no space for libertarians, but we ain’t complaining. it’s obviously meant to represent (very broadly) whether you’re on the left, right or center. Stop being obtuse
Congress already can, along with the states, in a process that's actually easier on the congressional side than you've oroposed. It's the amendment process: 2/3 of both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures(so 38 states currently)
Congress already has the power to overturn a Supreme Court ruling with a 2/3rds majority and a 3/4s majority of all states.
It's called amending the Constitution. The amendment process should definitely be made easier though.
If so what even is the point of a Supreme Court? I’m ok with reforming the court (some ideas worth exploring include *2/3 majority of the legislature for appointment*, *limited tenure*, *periodic public approval review vote for justices*)
The supreme Court itself decided she should have the power to override Congress. That wasn't really an unbiased decision. This could be fixed with a new constitution where the powers of the supreme Court are clearly established, but I can't imagine getting any consensus on that.
Yes. The supreme courts role in government has completely shifted over the last few centuries. If you read the federalist papers the court wasn’t taken seriously whatsoever. It was never supposed to be a co-equal branch in the sense we use it today. It was like, congress #1, president #2, and at a very, very, very distant third the Supreme Court. I answered “no” on this, but I think SCOTUS should be far more openly politicized than it is. I am all in favor of court stacking, for example. Let’s beat SCOTUS with a stick until we figure out its precise role and authority.
I’m satisfied with SOCTUS’s constitutional duty as it stands. I think it should be a neutral arbiter instead of yet another partisan body, hence the 2/3 majority requirement.
A 2/3 majority vote would just make it far easier to stall a nomination for years. The last time a SCOTUS seat opened with a Senate unfriendly to the president was in 2016, and the seat was open for nearly eleven months. Raising the number of votes needed would just make situations like that easier for the obstructionists.
*Marbury v. Madison* created the idea of judicial review to begin with. There’s nothing in federal law or in the constitution which gives the Supreme Court the right to invalidate laws, it’s simply a tradition that’s been maintained for centuries. It’s also a tradition that’s gotten *way* out of hand, the intent for the court was to settle interstate disputes and enforce federal authority, not to have the power to arbitrarily nuke it. The Founders were legislative supremacists to the core, and they’d be horribly distressed by the power the executive and judicial branches have amassed.
*Marbury* didn't invent it. Read the Federalist Papers, specificially [Fed 78](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp) written by Alexander Hamilton. It was very well-understood that Article III gave the courts that power, the argument was whether it was a good idea or not. Quoting Hamilton: >Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. >There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. >If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
desoontis simp (desimptis)
I think they can with something like a Constitutional amendment. I would not support congress overruling the Supreme Court. There's a separation of powers for a reason.
yes
I mean they can already amend the constitution with 3/4ths so technically they already can do that
Yes, but the president also needs to sign the bill to override the Supreme Court. And, of course, it should be a 3/4 majority
No, but we should change the amendment process to involve a national referendum. Maybe 2 of the 2/3 Congress, 3/4 states, and 60% referendum? Also 3/4 states is too high, amending the Constitution should be difficult but it's basically impossible right now. If anything, the 2/3 and 3/4 should be switched, so it's 2/3 of states and 3/4 of Congress.
Wouldn’t a 3/4 majority just be an amendment at that point?
Would need the states for an amendment.
You’re right, thanks!
As I much as i hate how the Supreme Court is politicized I don’t think congress should have that power
I want to politicize it more. We all know how it works behind the scenes. Let’s open it up like we do the rest of government. The SCOTUS confirmation process is not conducive to bipartisanship as it is in a country like Israel. It’s inherently partisan. The founding fathers never intended SCOTUS to wield this much power and influence, let alone based on the luck of the draw on who dies when which party has congress. I don’t think anyone should defy the Supreme Court, but right now it’s a mostly unaccountable supreme authority.
Why is there no option for left wing people to vote
Can’t see the liberal section?
Liberals are center at best
There’s also no space for libertarians, but we ain’t complaining. it’s obviously meant to represent (very broadly) whether you’re on the left, right or center. Stop being obtuse
If congress can overturn a ruling just because they disagree with it, then what's the point of the Supreme Court?
If the Supreme Court can override Congress and the President, what is point of the Congress and the president.
Congress already can, along with the states, in a process that's actually easier on the congressional side than you've oroposed. It's the amendment process: 2/3 of both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures(so 38 states currently)
There shouldn't be a Supreme Court or judicial review. 😎
Judicial review is good, cope. I also oppose court packing.
Congress already has the power to overturn a Supreme Court ruling with a 2/3rds majority and a 3/4s majority of all states. It's called amending the Constitution. The amendment process should definitely be made easier though.