Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through
This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court’s shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more
It wouldn’t. They gained that power by saying they have it, but it isn’t specifically granted. We just continue to assume they’re correct, and that they’re the ones who get to decide if they’re correct, but we don’t have to.
Judicial Review is the term to look for if you want to learn more.
Article III, Sections 1 and 2 grant them jurisdiction of all cases that arise under the constitution. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
SCOTUS doesn’t get to act where another government entity has provided an interpretation of the constitution unless someone disagrees with that entity’s interpretation. That disagreement is a “case”, and Article III is very clear that SCOTUS and the rest of the judicial branch is empowered to decide all “cases”.
If it was straightforward there wouldn’t be several hundred years of debate over it. I’m glad you’re so intelligent that you can see past all the issues others have noticed, but no one else is that lucky. My advice for you is to get a degree in constitutional law (it should be easy for you) and solve this issue once and for all for all of us. It’d save us a lot of time.
It would save a lot of time if you’d get around to demonstrating a flaw in my understanding, or actually offering the explanation and clarification I’m requesting.
I have clearly explained why I think SCOTUS is constitutionally empowered to rule on constitutional issues. Show me the flaw in my comprehension.
The other person commenting linked this, which you subsequently ignored and asked for more evidence (sea-lioning). If you cared to actually engage, maybe I would. Instead you’re ignoring what others say because you only want to read what you have to say.
Edit: I want to add, there’s plenty of scholars who hold the same opinion as you, and I potentially do too. However, I recognize that many people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself do not agree with that stance. If this is true then it’s clearly not particularly clearly defined.
No. I read it. I found no examples mentioned that contradicted the viewpoint I have presented.
For example:
That is perfectly consistent with my viewpoint, and contradicts the other person’s argument that the court oversteps its bounds.
The court’s function is to resolve “cases”. Where two parties come to a disagreement, the court is, indeed, the final arbiter of that disagreement. Where that disagreement is related to constitutionality, the court is requested and required to provide a ruling. That is their job.
Again, not a problem, until there is a conflict between the executive branch and someone else: where a case arises between the executive branch and another party, the court is specifically empowered to resolve that case. Until such a conflict arises, the executive branch is, indeed, empowered to interpret the constitution. But, once that “case” has arisen, Article III puts the ball in the courts.
That very ruling is an example of the court interpreting the constitution at the behest of the parties to a “case”. The court would have no ability to respond to address that issue without the parties disagreeing on who was constitutionally empowered to determine what was “proper”. If everyone has agreed that the Senate was charged with that duty, the courts don’t get involved in the interpretation. If everyone agreed the president, or a magic eight ball was charged with that duty, the courts don’t get involved because no case has arisen.
On and on, the essay repeatedly tried to show that there was some inherent problem with the judicial branch doing exactly what Article III empowered it to do: to hear cases. The essay doesn’t seem to support the other person’s initial claims about the court taking powers it wasn’t assigned. But, despite repeated queries, I could get no further context for their claim other than an essay that doesnt support such a claim.
I still can’t get you to challenge my own understanding, other than to point at the same essay that doesn’t seem to support your position, nor can I get any information from you about what your position actually is.
Address some part of your claims that Article III doesn’t mean what it says on the tin. Show me what you are talking about and how it differs from my own understanding.
Just a couple of questions. You aren’t an expert in the field of constitutional law, correct? If not, do you presume you know more than experts do? If so, do you agree that not all your peers through history agree with your stance?
I’m not stating one opinion or the other. I’m not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I’m pointing out that you keep implying there’s no way someone can disagree. However, it has been a topic of disagreement of experts for literally hundreds of years. If it was clear this wouldn’t be the case. You seem to imply that they’re wrong for this. If you want to know the reasons, look for their arguments, not random Lemmy users. Again, Judicial Review is the term to search for. There’s hundreds of years of debate for you to catch up on.