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.
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.
Clara@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
@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.
@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.
@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.
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
Why do you distinguish between “standard” law-making and law-making by amending the Constitution? Congress has exclusive authority to do both. Not the Supreme Court. Not the president. Congress can read Supreme Court decisions and makes laws in direct response to the SC decisions— isn’t that interesting? Isn’t that powerful?
I don’t know what you want Biden to do— in terms of ignoring the law or violating the law. But I hated it when Trump did that. And I hate the idea of Biden doing that.
I take all these ideas to heart because my family has intergenerational trauma related to our men killed in wars. If we ask Americans to serve the ideals of this country, then we need to maintain ideals. Our country is not perfect. It has never been perfect. We are in the process of making it better (more perfect 🙄). We will not make it better by abandoning ideals.
I’m sorry to get heavy on you, but it’s inescapable for me. My parents are visiting in 2 days and I will see, again, how the trauma continues to exist.
I think there are vast numbers of good Americans who will make our country better if they vote. If they vote, we’ll get the Congress we want. With the Congress we want, we’ll get the laws we want.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance b/c as Michael pointed out, the Constitution overrules lesser laws, making it something more than what Congress typically crafts.
Please take this to heart: if we had followed the path you recommend for today’s concerns back in 1860, Black folks might never have been recognized as persons under the Constitution.
Not all laws are just, & unjust laws must be ignored or, if necessary, vigorously violated.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance our laws are often not the same as our ideals. Deciding that some people do not deserve bodily autonomy is a violation of our ideals, though it’s now currently the law of the land thanks to Roe’s overturn.
There’s many other similar things going on today that must be ignored, flouted, or outright broken via illegal action to push for equality & equity.
Going along w/ an unjust SCOTUS is the path of breaking with our ideals.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance as for intergenerational trauma, both my grandfathers fought in WW2, 1 in Korea, my late father in law served during Vietnam. All survived their service, but carried trauma of their own.
I know for a fact my FIL would be dismayed by an argument to obey the law instead of following our ideals.
Voting has never been enough. It didn’t get us our rights, it didn’t get us equality, it won’t bring us back from the brink of fascism (again).
@jeffbyrnes @claraeroberts @mtsw @apearlma @Defiance
Also, malapportionment in the Senate, the electoral college, and gerrymandering all make a mockery of the idea of person one vote.
Voting by itself is not a viable solution when some people's votes count more than others (in the case of the Senate and the electoral college) or when politicians can pick their voters rather than the other way around (as in the case of gerrymandering).
@jeffbyrnes @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN
@apearlma @Defiance
1) Your statement regarding my “path,” which is the path of respecting the separation of powers of our three branches of government and the rule of law is illogical— mostly because our country followed my path & passed the 13th Amendment;
2) Say what you want— but it is inherently undemocratic to give Biden extraordinary powers beyond his constitutional authority.
Thank you for the convo. I think I’m done.
@claraeroberts @mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN @apearlma @Defiance You’re right about both those points! But we also didn’t get there without what was extraordinary, and illegal, action by 2 branches of gov’t.
Basically: sometimes the system breaks down, and it takes something extreme to overcome that breakdown to move forward & resume the healthy operation of self-governance.
Appreciate the convo as well, thanks 🙇🏻♂️
@claraeroberts @jeffbyrnes @mtsw @apearlma @Defiance
You also have to understand that SCOTUS is not just ruling on random cases. They get to pick which cases they here which means they get to pick which laws to uphold and strike down. That makes them functionally a super-legislature that can completely override the power of the other two branches. And even SCOTUS struck down a law passed by Congress and Congress enacted a replacement law, SCOTUS could just strike that law down ad infinitum.