what if SCOTUS went totally rogue?

[grasswire]

Scalia says important decisions shouldn't be left to congress. He implies that SCOTUS should be making the laws of the land, despite the will of the people being expressed through its elections.

Have we ever had a Supreme Court go rogue and impose an ideological agenda that is contrary to the will of the people? The GOP could set up a sort of rocket docket right to SCOTUS and impose all sorts of new misery on the country.

Would that be a coup?

What would be the remedy?

Of course the president does have the power to alter the court by adding new members. In the event of a rogue court, that might be the only remedy, as odious as some people think it is.

[djean111]

1. Well, that "will of the people" thing seems to have departed Washington altogether.

[msongs]

2. repubs will filibuster any liberal SCOTUS nominee (thanks, Harry), so good luck with that nt

[Vincardog]

3. They already have. Remember Bush V Gore? How about Citizens United?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. And not the first time

That we have a RW activist court.

[el_bryanto]

5. They already have certain powers, but they have limitations as well

They can only "legislate" based on the cases they hear. They don't have control over any agencies to enforce their verdicts - that's up to the executive. In theory they could render Congress obsolete in some regards.

Bryant

[graham4anything]

6. See, the protest voters in 2000 proved that Ralph Nader was 100% dead wrong

there is a difference between Al Gore and George Bush and all the other
of the stupid meme that both parties are the same.

Al Gore wouldn't have nominated who Bush did.
End. Of. Story.

and one of these days each and every Nader voter will have to account for their wasted votes in 2000.

And in 1980 too. Every single person who did not vote for Jimmy Carter got us Scalia and Thomas and Kennedy.
It is quite simple.

Those not voting for the democratic nominee in 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 in the general election gave us THIS court.
Are they happy? (and I am NOT implying any specific person or poster here. It is a general statement.


And it becomes imperative the democratic party secures 2014 by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE

Hopefully a great ANTI-GUN candidate will be put up in enough districts to swing it.

With the $$$$$ needed to win in 2014.

Those that say both parties are the same and those that sat on their hands in 2010, must never do so again and must vote, vote, vote, vote

actions begot consequences.

A winner does what a loser doesn't- that is get seated and have the ability to move forward

[theKed]

8. ...huh?

Doesn't really address the question. Like, at all.

[Autumn]

9. Welcome to DU theKed.

It's just a fetish some DUers have, don't worry about it.

[theKed]

10. Oh I know

I've seen graham4anything ranting and raving around all over the place on his 3 or 4 hot button topics.

[FarCenter]

7. Separation of powers doesn't assume the moral superiority of any one branch

By having three branches, the assumption is that whichever two branches are weaker will join in coalition to reduce the power of the third. Once the third branch is reduced in power below that of one of two in coalition, the coalition will break up and a new coalition will form. Thus, the total system has long term stability.

[Euphoria]

11. Thought-provoking post

And you are asking some good questions. What we are facing right now is very close to the attainment of one, if not THE, ultimate goal(s) of the extreme-ideological American "right". So it behooves us to consider these questions. And more. Because haven't we already experienced SCOTUS going rogue?

[grasswire]

12. my fear now is a rocket docket

....where GOP brings any case it wishes up to SCOTUS for affirmation.

It's going on right now. A state legislature will introduce some crazy nutjob law that might even be unconstitutional. On appeal, if it gets to SCOTUS, they validate it and it becomes the law of the land.

That could be the way the right wins its way, at last.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Just because the SCOTUS declines to overturn a law passed by some state legislature

does not mean that it becomes "the law of the land".

There seems to be some basic misunderstanding of the roles of the branches of government in this thread.

[BlueStreak]

14. Constitution gives Congress the right to define the structure of the SCOTUS

For example, tomorrow, they could pass a law that says henceforth there shall be 15 justices, each serving a single 15 year term, with one seat being filled each year plus any vacancies due to death or resignation.

Basically the Congress can stop the abuse of power by SCOTUS if they wanted to.

In fact FDR advanced a similar plan when the SCOTUS got to be too big of a problem. And they immediately backed down, obviating the need for FDR's plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[LonePirate]

15. Wait. I thought Repubs hated "activist" judges who legislate from the bench

Once again, Republican hypocrisy makes my head spin.