Should we dissolve the Supreme Court if we don’t like their decision?
Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
- Baconqueen13
- Princess Royal
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
- Location: In Sanity
For simply not liking a vote, no. However, if it is found that the members have violated their oath of office then by all means.
- jas
- Donated
-
Princess Royal
- Posts: 8112
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 8:33 am
- Location: This space for rent
No, what a moron. you dissolve that and you lose one of the checks and balances of our government. While I'm sure some wouldn't mind, that would accomplish nothing more than our downfall as a government.
-
- Donated
-
Princess
- Posts: 10277
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm
Olbermann has always been a wealth of dramatic hyperbole, lol.
I do think supreme court justices should be held to the same ethics requirements of lower court justices and it's obvious that they can't just "self-police".
I think if they lie in their confirmation hearings it should be grounds for removal.
I also think that the SCOTUS ruling basically kicked the can to Congress and while Trump and Trump supporters may see this as a win (Trump can remain on the ballot), imagine if Trump wins and it's a democratic Congress in January. SCOTUS has just ruled that Congress, and Congress alone has the authority to determine Trump's eligibility. Is it so hard to imagine a democratic held congress refusing to certify a Trump election based on that? If Biden wins and it's a republican held congress, the reverse could happen. I'm concerned about the election but equally concerned about the certification of election results by Congress because let's face it, it didn't go well last time.
ETA: The above scenario is assuming that Mike Johnson seats newly elected democrats to the house which is not a given.
Regardless, this is going to be a shit show ride and a test of our democracy. I think the "balance of power" has been shown to not be so balanced.
I do think supreme court justices should be held to the same ethics requirements of lower court justices and it's obvious that they can't just "self-police".
I think if they lie in their confirmation hearings it should be grounds for removal.
I also think that the SCOTUS ruling basically kicked the can to Congress and while Trump and Trump supporters may see this as a win (Trump can remain on the ballot), imagine if Trump wins and it's a democratic Congress in January. SCOTUS has just ruled that Congress, and Congress alone has the authority to determine Trump's eligibility. Is it so hard to imagine a democratic held congress refusing to certify a Trump election based on that? If Biden wins and it's a republican held congress, the reverse could happen. I'm concerned about the election but equally concerned about the certification of election results by Congress because let's face it, it didn't go well last time.
ETA: The above scenario is assuming that Mike Johnson seats newly elected democrats to the house which is not a given.
Regardless, this is going to be a shit show ride and a test of our democracy. I think the "balance of power" has been shown to not be so balanced.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
-
- Princess
- Posts: 11513
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 5:53 pm
Not just whenever “we” don’t agree with them, but there is a standard legal process under which congress and the senate elects and dissolves Supreme Court justices if they are deemed unfit.
-
- Countess
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2023 12:49 pm
Olbermann.
Say no more and simply laugh at the jester.
Say no more and simply laugh at the jester.
just an old coot
-
- Princess
- Posts: 22838
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm
If you dilute it, do you not also lose one of the checks and balances? Have you minded having the court tipped in your favor?
306/232
But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
-
- Donated
-
Princess
- Posts: 10277
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm
The Supreme Court has always been political. It's only when political beliefs are so divisive that that is seen as a problem.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
-
- Princess
- Posts: 22838
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm
It's divisive because it's so lopsided.WellPreserved wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:39 pm The Supreme Court has always been political. It's only when political beliefs are so divisive that that is seen as a problem.
306/232
But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
-
- Donated
-
Princess
- Posts: 10277
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm
I think it's because it's the most conservative. Historically, the supreme court has been generally liberal (it was a conservative supreme court that decided Dred Scott). For conservatives, that has always been seen as lopsided.Della wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:52 pmIt's divisive because it's so lopsided.WellPreserved wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:39 pm The Supreme Court has always been political. It's only when political beliefs are so divisive that that is seen as a problem.
I think the problem with the current SCOTUS is not that they are political, but that they are actively revisiting previously decided law.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde