Ok. I think that illustrates the key difference in our positions. I wouldn’t be okay with SCOTUS acting that way, and I’m not okay with the PA Supreme Court acting as they did. I do not believe the courts should act as super legislators or super governments, rewriting or re-interpreting the law when people and voters are too mired in politics or ignorance. Some questions and issues are political in nature and not justiciable - I think the PA issue and the Garland issue should fall into that category.
So there’s NO recourse when a branch of government lays down their responsibility? The elected POTUS doesn’t get to make a SC appointment at all because one party decided that they’d rather explode a nuclear bomb on Capitol Hill than actually do their job?
It’s no wonder the Republican party is such a gigantic clusterfuck if that’s how their membership feels.
In that case, Bone, you’re about 215 years too late.
That’s how it’s set up. If the Supreme Court made outrageous unconstitutional decisions or refused to judge a highly contentious case would you favor removing them without a full Senate vote? If the President decides to declare war without Congressional assent, do you abandon the impeachment process?
Especially when those politics or that ignorance preserve Republican advantage.
Because he’s a crazy Trumpist or something, right? He must be crazy in some way to not agree with you. Or deeply ignorant. It’s so obvious to you that only a dumb crazy person would disagree.
I assume Bone considers legislative elections the appropriate recourse. If people were unhappy with the republican stonewalling on Merrick Garland, they had the opportunity in 2016 to replace those legislators with people who were willing to hold a hearing. Their re-election implies that the people either approve or don’t care about their ethically repugnant behavior.
Congratulations on that fourteen-step jump from reality. Please continue to put words into my mouth.
Couple of problems here.
-
The U.S. Senate does not democratically represent the population of America. It is heavily slanted to smaller, usually redder, states. For example, a Senator from Idaho represents a much smaller amount of people than a Senator from California.
-
Not every Senator is up for election each time we have an election. Only 1/3 of Senate seats were up for election in 2016. So not everyone got to voice their opinions on this Senate in the last election.
Therefore, you cannot take the results of the last Senate election to mean that “the people either approve or don’t care about their ethically repugnant behavior”.
The fact is that having elections be the only recourse for entire branches of Government not doing their jobs, or refusing to follow a court order, is insufficient to maintain a functional democracy. Especially when many of the actions being taken are in service to cementing electoral advantage, as in this PA situation. It’s simultaneously claiming that elections are our only hope, and then attacking the ability of those elections to accurately represent the population’s will.
The constitution is very clear on how to remove a SC justice, and is clear on who is allowed to declare war. Doing either of those things would be directly against the constitution.
But, the senate does actually have that power. If the senate feels that the SC is being derelict in its duties, then it can fire them all and empanel new ones. What similar check does the SC have against the senate being derelict in its duties?
This is something that is not addressed in the constitution. Someone needs to make a decision on it, who would you propose that be?
I don’t disagree that those are frustrating problems. If I had been around for the writing of the constitution, I would have had some suggestions, you can bet.
I am not saying that elections are true and objective bellwethers of public opinion, but that elections are the bellwethers that the constitution provides us. If they are insufficient, we need to either amend the constitution or draw up another one.
Or, and here’s a crazy idea, let the courts be the check that they are supposed to be in a system of checks and balances.
I know, really radical, but I think it just might work.
You say supposed to be as if it’s obvious that the court has the authority to assume legislative roles left by the wayside and I don’t think that’s as universally agreed as you’d prefer.
The alternative is let one party cement permanent advantage by refusing to follow court orders. I don’t see how democracy survives if that becomes the new normal.
What court order wasn’t followed re: Merrick Garland?
Marbury vs Madison was a poor decision, in your opinion?
:rolleyes:
The Senate. You see, despite the classroom talk of co-equal branches, the Senate gets to choose the size of the Supreme Court and is the gate keeper of who populates it. By the structure set up by the founders, the SC jumping up and setting it’s own rules for inclusion would be quite outrageous.
This thread is about the PA Supreme court order that the GOP was refusing to cooperate with. Its right there in the thread title. The Garland thing was offered as an analogy, I don’t think we need to change the focus of the entire thread to just that.
Simple question. If the GOP decides that it no longer has to follow the laws and begins doing anything it wants with respect to voting rights, and gerrymandering so that it can’t possibly lose elections, and it does not recognize the authority of the court, then what do we have here in America? It isn’t Democracy any more is it?