mtswThere is no "law" anymore as long as the GOP's stolen majority controls the Supreme Court. They will just blindly assert their power to run our country until that power is challenged https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/2/28/23618985/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-biden-nebraska-education-brown
The Democratic plan to deal with this, just kinda hope to never lose another election until a couple conservative justices die while Dems control the Senate, is so obviously doomed it's hardly worth commenting on. Laughable and pathetic way for our ability to self-govern to die, real late-Byzantine Empire shit
Defiance!@mtsw What can be done? Wouldn't legislation (my preferred approach to this stuff) also wind up in the courts, with the same fate? Been trying to think of what Dems or anyone else can do here besides a lot of performative outrage and in-fighting.
Eric Southard
Andy Pearlman@Defiance @mtsw basically, Biden has to say something to the effect of "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." on something that at least 70% of the country can agree strongly on and is easily implemented by the government.
SCOTUS looks like they're headed there on something by 2024.
Clinical Rawlsian@apearlma @Defiance @mtsw 100%. Biden can either ignore the court and run in 2024 on "I defied an illegitimate and partisan court that was trying to strike down legislation duly and lawfully enacted by the elected representatives of the American people" or he can run on "I wanted to help you guys out, but those mean old conservatives on the court wouldn't let me. What are you gonna do, am I right?"
@apearlma @Defiance @mtsw The six conservative SCOTUS justices have left Biden no option but to ignore their illegitimate, partisan rulings. If he does not, Biden is essentially acknowledging that American democracy is completely dead and that we are going to be governed by the FedSoc six for the rest of our lives.
@apearlma @Defiance @mtsw The most frustrating thing is that there would likely be little to no political or legal consequences to Biden just ignoring the court. The two Trump impeachments proved that the presidential removal process is toothless as long as the president's party controls at least one third of the senate. And Biden could just pardon himself in any member of the executive for any potential federal charges before leaving office.
dawnfry@MadMadMadMadRN @mtsw @Defiance @apearlma
I live in a deep red state. They will just make more excuses and live (until they die from lack of food and medical care) in denial. Faux News will find a way to blame the Democrats, and the Republican voters will eat it up. These are the same folks who blame poor PoC and immigrants for the logical results of the unfettered capitalism they continue to support. Logic and critical thinking is not encouraged in their ranks.
Clara@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
The worst harm flowing from Trump and the GOP is how they have destroyed honor and truth and belief in conducting our government according to principles. The SCOTUS is compromised— there’s no doubt about it.
Trump and the GOP are fascists who hate American values— I’m talking about equality, free speech, the right to vote, and the right for your vote to mean something. The SCOTUS and Trump and the GOP put their own beliefs before their obligations under the Constitution.
We cannot follow the example set by Trump and the fuckers in the GOP. We will not be like them. We will win, and we will win fair & square.
scotian@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw I hate imputing any wisdom to Trump but on some gut, lizard-brained level, the man understood the appeal behind the politics of domination. If you're Biden, you don't need to imitate the style, but there is logic (and precedent!) to rallying support by being bellicose and posturing as the bully, especially on popular issues. Maybe not "haha bring it you nerds" but honestly, even that would be better than saying "oh well guess we can't do anything."
@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw also, you're a co-equal branch of government (using powers set out for you in a law written by another co-equal branch) — start acting like it!
@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
Democracy is dead if Biden ignores the rulings of the judiciary, an independent, co-equal branch of government. It is rather outrageous to suggest that Biden could, would or should.
Three independent, co-equal branches of government contemplates our current scenario. Our democracy is built to withstand this situation.
@claraeroberts @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw I don't think you understand what "democracy" or "co-equal" mean.
If the judiciary can just overrule the legislative and executive branches whenever they feel like it for whatever reason without any recourse on behalf of the other two branches, that is not a co-equal branch.
@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw Have you heard any talk about Congress passing laws related to a judicial code of ethics or laws related to the size of the Supreme Court or their shadow docket? These are legitimate ways for one branch of government to exert power against another branch of government. Likewise, the executive branch has the responsibility to investigate crimes, like fraud. This is another legitimate way to reign in abuses by the judiciary.
Biden refusing to follow the law is as bad as Trump refusing to follow the law. That destroys everything.
Jeff Byrnes@claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw It’s not. It also has precedent: various shitty decisions led to SCOTUS being ignored by Lincoln in the 1860s:
“…they simply ignored the proslavery precedents established in the 1850s. In June 1862… Congress passed and Lincoln signed a bill banning slavery from the federal territories — a direct violation of the majority ruling in Dred Scott.”
https://jacobin.com/2020/09/abraham-lincoln-supreme-court-slavery
@claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw Basically, SCOTUS does not make law, they interpret it. So the President would not be refusing to follow the law, he would be refusing to acquiesce to a co-equal branch wielding its power ideologically instead of with jurisprudence as laid out by its guiding tenets & the Constitution.
@claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw I was as surprised as hell to learn about this bit of antebellum history, as I’d always considered SCOTUS how you seem to be. But the idea that “law somehow exists before or beyond politics, and thus it was illegitimate to resist the proslavery court through popular antislavery mobilization” was right for Lincoln to resist, and we are similarly right to resist this Court.
@jeffbyrnes @claraeroberts @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
FDR got the Lochner court to back down by making a credible threat to expand the court. Even though Congress ultimately voted against expanding the court, the threat worked.
Biden painted himself into a corner at the beginning of his term by publicly and definitively saying that he didn't support expanding the court. At this point, ignoring politically motivated court decisions is Biden's best and really only option.
@jeffbyrnes @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma
@Defiance @mtsw
I’m confused.
Congress makes law. SCOTUS resolves conflicts in law. Precedent is supposed to guide interpretation by the SCOTUS of laws. Congress is not bound by precedent. Executive enforces law.
If Congress passed a law & Lincoln signed it, then Lincoln wasn’t ignoring the law. The new law supersedes the previous law.
@claraeroberts @jeffbyrnes @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance
please at least read the wikipedia entry for the dred scott decision before responding
@mtsw @claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance I mean, tl;dr, SCOTUS interpreted, Lincoln disagreed, passed a law w/ Congress directly ignoring the interpretation, SCOTUS tucked tail & went along.
@mtsw @claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance the afore linked Jacobin article lays it out pretty well, I only quoted a small part.
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
Congress makes the laws— it doesn’t have to follow the SCOTUS interpretation.
The legislative branch makes our laws. The judiciary resolves controversies. These are the basic powers of these two branches of government.
You say SCOTUS tucked its tail— but that’s what it always does when Congress clearly and unambiguously tells SCOTUS what the law is. Congress can change our constitution, right? Congress has the power to remove all doubt about how SCOTUS should decide cases.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance relevant Wiki bit that you seem to have missed:
“During the United States election of 1860, abolitionists formed the Republican Party that rejected the ruling as being corrupted by partisanship and non-binding because the court had no jurisdiction. …Lincoln stated he would not permit slavery anywhere in the country except where it already existed, which directly contradicted the court's ruling.”
Again: Lincoln just ignored SCOTUS.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance this was a wildly radical act by Lincoln, which was later backed up by the Congress of the time.
AFAIK, we’ve never seen its like before or since.
We’re at another pivot point in our history where folks are begging the President to act with justice, instead of simple legality.
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
I understand that you say in 1860 Lincoln ignored the 1859 SCOTUS ruling, but did he take action in violation of the SCOTUS ruling? Or did he wait until Congress passed the 1862 law and then act in accordance with the 1862 law?
If he took action in violation of the 1859 law, what exactly did he do?
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance Dred Scott wasn’t an “1859 law”. It was a Constitutional interpretation. Specifically, it decided that Black folks weren’t covered by the Constitution.
There wasn’t any law for Congress to change, besides the Constitution itself, which they didn’t do until later.
Instead, Lincoln & Congress enacted laws that simply ignored that the Constitution’s meaning had been changed.
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
Pardon me, I misspoke. Dred Scott was a 1859 Supreme Court case decision that became the law of the land.
The 1862 law enacted by Congress and signed by Lincoln became the new controlling law of the land.
This process does not demonstrate that Lincoln or Congress took power away from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had and still has the power to decide cases.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance If SCOTUS interprets the Constitution to mean something, future law is supposed to operate with that interpretation as part of its basis.
Congress & Lincoln didn’t change what SCOTUS had done. They just ignored it. I’m not sure how many times I can plainly say that. You keep coming back to what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’m saying, and what happened.
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
I think you identified where we disagree. I don’t think Congress is required to write laws that conform to what the SCOTUS has decided in cases.
Congress can enact new statutory language that effectively nullifies or supersedes a court’s conclusion or interpretation. This is an important component of the separation of powers. If it weren’t true, then the legislature wouldn’t really have the Article 1 power to make laws.
Here’s an article discussing it:
@claraeroberts @jeffbyrnes @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance
if congress passes laws that contradict the constitution the constitution overrules them. if there is a constitutional issue identified by the supreme court they have to pass a constitutional amendment.
@mtsw @claraeroberts @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance that’s what I’ve been struggling to explain (thanks Michael).
Congress can’t overrule the Constitution w/o an amendment. “Standard” lawmaking doesn’t cut it.
Except if Congress + Prez decide to ignore how that all works, which is illegal, but here we are all the same having it in our history.
@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
I disagree about our options. Democracy’s strength is not centered in the president. It’s not strategic to think that Biden must do something (particularly something that violates fundamental principles of democracy) or else all hope is lost.
Democracy’s strength is in the hands of voters. We vote for the law makers— the ones who write the laws. We vote for the people who can expand the Supreme Court. Biden can’t do that— but Congress can. Our votes are power. So if you want to kick the GOP in the nuts or teach the SCOTUS a lesson, work for candidates. Work at a voting center. Everything comes back to votes. Vote.
@claraeroberts @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald Trump.
Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush
@MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance @mtsw
Yes.
Our country was born from oppression. The traditions that the GOP loves are OPPRESSIVE. It is a terrible, deadly struggle to get rid of the oppression.
Neo-Athenian Empire@mtsw Does an actionable plan exist without 50 senators willing to end the Filibuster and full control of the Government?
@mtsw I can't remember where I read this or who said it, but the end of great empires is most often not the result of barbarian invasions or natural disasters or plagues. Rather, empires fall when the state loses the ability to constrain the ambitions and desires of wealthy and powerful elites.
Yaktuary@mtsw What alternate plan are you suggesting?
marktaylor@mtsw ignoring the Court is a good option. Republicans can do nothing.