This major questions doctrine, at least as it is understood by the Court’s current majority, emerged almost from thin air in the past several years. And it has been wielded almost exclusively by Republican-appointed justices to invalidate policies created by a Democratic administration. This doctrine is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Nor is it mentioned in any federal statute. It appears to have been completely made up by justices who want to wield outsize control over federal policy.
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
219 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19011 readers
3602 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
~~The President could stop this at any time. All he needs to do is pack the court with more justices to rebalance it. Not doing so makes him complicit.~~
Foot meet mouth. I'm an idiot.
Exactly how does the president do that? He cannot expand the court on his own. Congress doesn't have enough Democrats to do it. None of the current justices are going anywhere unless they die.
Or, charge several of them with taking bribes. As there is plenty of evidence already, they are not above the law.
The moronic general public already thinks holding 45 accountable is "political persecution" source. This is with rocksteady evidence. And now you people are talking about charging R-aligned Justices on loose bribe accusations? Just... no. This is how you fire up their base and hand R's the election with a supermajority.
This is the Congress' job to fix. Want it fixed? Stop relying on the president and start figuring out how to make Congress actually work again.
This is how you fire up their base
Not sure what more firing up the base needs in your opinion? That part of society is lost for quite a while now and if you think these morons could be 'pulled back in' as long as you do not insult/antagonize/etc. is a myth. A dangerous one at that. I would even wager that this attitude of soft gloves to not insult or fail to fairly accommodate the other side is what partially got us here.
The choices aren't Democrats or Republicans. It's Democrat, Republican, or stay at home and not vote. I'm not dumb enough to think people are willing to change positions easily these days. But R's just got fed some good red meat (Dobbs), which means some of them will become complacent. There isn't one issue at the moment which motivates their base as good as abortion, which is why they're flailing around and trying to demonize trans folk
The choices aren’t Democrats or Republicans. It’s Democrat, Republican, or stay at home and not vote.
Staying home and not voting is a vote for Republicans. The GOP are still beating the abortion drum by pushing for national bans and even more restrictions on abortion in the states where it's still legal. Demonizing trans kids is their new boogeyman to keep those who are past the abortion issue in line and make sure that there's something new for them to fear.
The GOP are masters at scaring their voters to the polls, and one of the things they hope for is that Democrat voters stay home in "protest". You're not protesting anything by staying home. You're helping the GOP.
Ending the fillibuster would do a lot to make change, but in part the cery purpose of it is to force some measure of consensus by preventing a simple mahority from steamrolling the minority. When one side refuses ANY level of meaningful compromise however you get trades that are so massivly out of balance as to be counterproductive to the wishes of any progressive movement.
Ending the fillibuster would do a lot to make change, but in part the cery purpose of it is to force some measure of consensus by preventing a simple mahority from steamrolling the minority.
This is why I'm actually against removing the filibuster. Yes, Democrats would be able to make some short term gains in the process. But all it would lead to is the GOP just taking note of everything the Democrats did and just reversing it all on day one the minute they regain power. And then after that, we get to sit back and watch as they continue to steamroll over other rights as well.
I really don't want to live in a society where my rights are dictated by the whims of whatever party is in power and likely to change multiple times a decade.
You're delusional. That will never happen.
Everyone chip in to make sure all the conservative justices have free chicken and big macs at all times. While signing up the liberal justices for free gym memberships.
Just pointing out there is a public mailing address for the supreme court that I'm sure would happily forward gift certificates, and a chik fil a almost within shouting distance. Don't make them walk too far, it'd defeat the purpose.
You're right, and I'm an idiot. The US is truly and royally fucked. At this point it's an unsalvageable shit-show slaughter-fest of slavery and oppression.
The French had a solution for that
...and the Senate put itself in charge of the Judicial branch. Anything the President could do to offset either power grab is checked by the Senate. We need to stop pretending that the Presidential election is the most important.
Local elections have a lot more impact on your quality of life, and there's usually at least one every year.
The key to voting, as shown by the Evangelicals managing to overturn Roe, is to do it consistently. Every primary, every election, for decades. Unfortunately that's what it takes to effect change in our system of government.
They do have more impact in general, but national allows malicious actors to overrule local laws and suppress votes.
Both are critical even though I agree people should increase their focus on local politics.
Agreed, but state elections can also allow malicious actors to overrule federal mandates, like Medicaid. Besides, if you vote in every election you vote in the federal ones, too.
Getting good people elected to local offices also builds a pipeline of people qualified for higher office. (Although, here in Georgia, there's also a habit of running or appointing "outsiders" to high office whenever possible)
You mean you aren't supposed to just bitch about how your elected official didn't magically do everything you wanted and then stop voting?
I'd be fine with a Presidential Review of the Supreme Court every four years offset by two years of the Presidential election. This would allow a President to replace members of the Supreme Court with a simple majority of the House and Senate as part of the conformation of a new judge. The President would have to justify the replacement for criminal or ethical reasons confirmed by both houses of Congress.
I’d be fine with a Presidential Review of the Supreme Court every four years offset by two years of the Presidential election. This would allow a President to replace members of the Supreme Court with a simple majority of the House and Senate as part of the conformation of a new judge. The President would have to justify the replacement for criminal or ethical reasons confirmed by both houses of Congress.
This would be great until Trump 2.0 comes along and throws out liberal judges he doesn't like or that he knows won't rule in his favor, backed by a complicit Congress. We just got finished with four years off watching one man almost singlehandedly corrupt every single branch of government with ease, so it's not like this idea is far fetched.
Rulings would no longer be about what is (supposed to be) best for the American people but instead would be about what rulings to give so they can keep their cushy jobs, especially when the White House and Congress are both controlled by the same party.
I understand the sentiment behind trying to get the corrupt judges off the bench, but this would likely just make the situation worse, not better.
That is why there is still a check by Congress and it occurs at the Midterm.