Vote of no confidence in Supreme Court?

[K_W]

Google was no help... Is it at all possible under US law that a Congress in some future form could hold a "Vote of No Confidence" against the potential 7-2 Liberal Supreme Court and replace it with a properly mixed court?

 

[Tombs]

The founders never left us any measures for dealing with corruption, so it'd be surprising to me if they left us such a measure as that.

They figured we'd have enough of a spine to correct a government before letting it get this far.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The states can amend the Constitution and that's just about the only remedy the Founders gave us to deal with imbalances in the Separation of Powers.

 

[JTScribe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-the-bench-a-quick-civics-lesson/?0p19G=c

 

[HoughMade]

I don't understand this thread.

We have checks and balances, appointment with consent of the Senate, impeachment, Congress can restrict jurisdiction, the ability to amend the Constitution.

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

 

[Kurr]

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

Nailed it!!

 

[cobber]

I don't understand this thread.

We have checks and balances, appointment with consent of the Senate, impeachment, Congress can restrict jurisdiction, the ability to amend the Constitution.

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

And the President elected by the Electoral College.

 

[Spear Dane]

I don't understand this thread.

We have checks and balances, appointment with consent of the Senate, impeachment, Congress can restrict jurisdiction, the ability to amend the Constitution.

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

Good god man, are you some kind of communist? That's undemocratic!

 

[HubertGummer]

I think what the founding fathers never accounted for was this:

They never though the people would voluntarily vote for an oppressive government

 

[Fargo]

Google was no help... Is it at all possible under US law that a Congress in some future form could hold a "Vote of No Confidence" against the potential 7-2 Liberal Supreme Court and replace it with a properly mixed court?

Individual justices can be impeached, per the constitution they only hold their office during "good behavior". Replacements would still be appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok party people in the house.

Just remember that what we would want to use against "them" they could use against "us."

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[drylkuch]

The basis for the lifetime tenure of judges comes from Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution which states that judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior." The accepted meaning of that phraise has always meant a lifetime. And unfortunately the only people who can officially redefine it are the supreme court. I personally don't see how that leaves any room for congress to hold a vote of no confidence against the court.

I don't understand this thread.

We have checks and balances, appointment with consent of the Senate, impeachment, Congress can restrict jurisdiction, the ability to amend the Constitution.

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

There really aren't any strong checks on the supreme court. Yes, judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, but once they are in office that check means nothing.

Congress can pass more amendments to the constitution. But that would be extremely difficult today. Unless there is a huge outcry from the people for an amendment we can safely rule our that option as well.

Nullification (when a president refuses to enforce the decision of the supreme court) has historically been used as a check against them as well. That, however, is illegal under the constitution, and hasn't been common since Andrew Jackson was president. There's no way it could happen today.

The only thing that really stops the supreme court from having dictatorial power over America is that they can't make rulings on any issue that they want to. Someone else must bring the case into their hearing. Otherwise they could review any law or section of the constitution that they want, and interpret it in any what that they want at any time for any reason. Their word would be final (baring future amendments to the constitution).

 

[Fargo]

The basis for the lifetime tenure of judges comes from Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution which states that judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior." The accepted meaning of that phraise has always meant a lifetime. And unfortunately the only people who can officially redefine it are the supreme court. I personally don't see how that leaves any room for congress to hold a vote of no confidence against the court.



There really aren't any strong checks on the supreme court. Yes, judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, but once they are in office that check means nothing.

Congress can pass more amendments to the constitution. But that would be extremely difficult today. Unless there is a huge outcry from the people for an amendment we can safely rule our that option as well.

Nullification (when a president refuses to enforce the decision of the supreme court) has historically been used as a check against them as well. That, however, is illegal under the constitution, and hasn't been common since Andrew Jackson was president. There's no way it could happen today.

The only thing that really stops the supreme court from having dictatorial power over America is that they can't make rulings on any issue that they want to. Someone else must bring the case into their hearing. Otherwise they could review any law or section of the constitution that they want, and interpret it in any what that they want at any time for any reason. Their word would be final (baring future amendments to the constitution).

The first federal judge to be impeached and convicted by the senate was 1804. The first Supreme Court justice to be impeached was Chase in 1805. However, he was acquitted by the Senate. The last federal judge to be impeached and convicted was in 2010.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The founders never left us any measures for dealing with corruption, so it'd be surprising to me if they left us such a measure as that.

Who is telling you this?

 

[Stickfight]

Who is telling you this?

Thaddeus Russell? No, that can't be it....

 

[oldpink]

I think what the founding fathers never accounted for was this:

They never though the people would voluntarily vote for an oppressive government

They were far more visionary than you give them credit for having been.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
-Woman speaking directly to Benjamin Franklin outside Independence Hall shortly after the drafting of the Constitution


“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
-Benjamin Franklin's response


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[singlestacksig]

there is no specific mention to the # of judges..

 

[Tombs]

Who is telling you this?

Well I can think of one but they don't like that being discussed here.

 

[Lex Concord]

What we need is to get the Senate back to being appointed by state legislatures.

+8,949,383,957,654

 

[edporch]

Also, according to Article III of the US Constitution, Congress has the power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.