Maybe to you, but not to me. "That's not completely true" also comports to mean that something that some one calls true, as being mostly true, but not entirely. So be clear, so I don't have to try and assume what you mean. If you can't do that, don't expect me to do it.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
One LARGE order of S-HOLE coming right up!
- Thread starter 1DOWN4UP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Maybe to you, but not to me. "That's not completely true" also comports to mean that something that some one calls true, as being mostly true, but not entirely. So be clear, so I don't have to try and assume what you mean. If you can't do that, don't expect me to do it.
That does little practical good to protect people from the whims of the mob. In situations where we're going against the constitution, since the mob is fine with that, that's what gets enforced. That makes us a nation where the whims most common to a majority reign supreme, not a nation of laws where the law reigns supreme over the whims of the mob.
In the march ever progressively left, we can look at the most extreme views today and predict that's where we'll be at some point tomorrow. Of course the pendulum swings, but it also tends to ratchet ever further left, as each swing conditions the public to accept progressively more. Listening to a lot of college kids today, they want full on mob rule. That's essentially anarcho-communism. And we could get much closer to that than we are before a political reset.
CampingJosh
Master
- Dec 16, 2010
- 3,298
- 99
The Congress can definitely overrule the SCOTUS, both in theory and in reality. Congress can add justices to overrule SCOTUS from within. Congress can pass so many laws that SCOTUS can't keep up. Congress can start the process to amend the Constitution.
That Congress has chosen not to do so in most instances doesn't mean it's impractical to think that they could. There are, perhaps, easily explainable reasons why Congress would want to let a question be answered by SCOTUS rather than by themselves. It's really pretty difficult to find a topic that has been used in more congressional campaigns than abortion (both pro and con), and yet when sitting in office, Congress rarely tries to actually address the topic.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I see that as Congress being happy with what the Court has done, not frustrated but unable to respond.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,563
- 149
True to a degree, look at the federal firearm school zone ban as an example. SCOTUS ruled it as unConstitutional, Congress made a few changes, passed it, and the President signed it. While I think the new law is unConstitutional, and a gross over reach of the commerce clause, I don't know if SCOTUS would agree with me or not.
Congress can't add judges, well not directly. They can vote to increase the number of Justices, but the President is the one who has to add them with Congress's advice and consent. Technicality maybe, but I prefer accuracy when discussing these things as much as possible.
The thing we're discussing is how practical it is to change the constitution, vs it being, in the most practical sense, a living document.
Congress can't add justices to overrule SCOTUS by themselves. The POTUS nominates appointees. Congress can't do that. FDR did the very thing you suggest, attempting to stack the courts to water down the constitutional objections to the New Deal. Likely, given the landslide his reelection, he'd have had the political capital to wield against congress to have given him that. But, because a couple of justices abandoned the rule of law, and switched sides, the court stacking wasn't necessary. Nevertheless, over the 3 terms plus change, he appointed 8 SCOTUS justices which pushed the US the furthest in the progression from a Republican nation of laws, to a Democratic nation of whims.
In the context of what we're talking about, whatever checks and balances were written into the constitution, phat lot of good it does. Regardless of why congress doesn't check SCOTUS, SCUTUS is effectively unchecked. That's a problem.
CampingJosh
Master
- Dec 16, 2010
- 3,298
- 99
Right. The point is that any two branches can always overrule the third. That's the point.
If the Congress alone could overrule the court, that would the problem in checks and balances.
(And technically Congress can add justices. They cannot choose who fills those roles, though, as you pointed out. If you're going to be a stickler for technicalities in order to avoid discussing the point, this game can probably go on forever.)
CampingJosh
Master
- Dec 16, 2010
- 3,298
- 99
I completely disagree with this premise.
If the Executive and Legislative branches choose not to check the Judicial, it's because they are (at least implicitly) on board with what the Judicial branch is doing. The checks and balances are still there. They could still work.
I regret that I agree with this. Many politicians don't disagree with the process, only the results. They wish to get control of the process rather than fix the constitutional problem.
I must say I think conservatives have been forced into this strategy as a defensive move, though
The constitution could still work. But it doesn't.
Look how many people want to **** on the 2A.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521
They prepare the ground by watering down the interpretation of the amendment, from an absolute right to a conditional right with ever more conditions. Whether it's the gun control lobby on RKBA or Big Data on any possible 4th amendment interpretation of a right to privacy, the idea gains traction before the actual judicial overreach. Ideology creeps into the courts slowly, but it gets there nevertheless. The fight over shading the ideological make-up of the court comes to be seen as normal and whether one side is attempting to restore a status quo lost in the noise. Disagreements devolve into battles to be won. With both sides failing to support strict interpretation except in the breech, what makes our republic unique is softened and eroded away.
You guys were arguing about changing the constitution. That took the conversation to where you went, then I added the matter of practicality. The conversation is about whatever it was about last. We've gone way past talking about one specific topic of LARGE order of S-HOLE, right?
Edit: now the conversation is about talking about what the conversation is about.
It's easier for them to hide and deflect from what is going on in South Africa when you are given squirrels to chase.
I got called out for saying the same thing.
I thought it was about we shouldn't let South African farmers come here on TPS or any other program that short-circuits the full immigration process, despite death threats, because their country isn't enough of a ****-hole (yet) and
because; racism
because; racism
Don’t forget part of it was they had it coming.
