General Discussion

FakeNoose

(35,808 posts)

28. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you can recall back to the early-mid 60's

Wed Sep 18, 2024, 11:52 AM

Sep 18

The same thing was said about the SCOTUS then - only it was the ultra-conservatives who thought Chief Justice Earl Warren was off his rocker. The difference between then and now is that the SCOTUS justices under Warren weren't playing politics, they were righting the racial wrongs of earlier generations. In some cases they might have overstepped, but that has been corrected in later rulings.

This set of SCOTUS justices (the cons I mean) are just playing "tit-for-tat." Also some are secretly playing "what's in it for me" - only that wasn't supposed to become common knowledge. The Federalist puppet masters are running the show, the Justices are just dancing like they've been taught.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

PoliticsGirl: There's nothing in the Constitution that says SCOTUS is the final word on what's constitutional [View all] Dennis Donovan Sep 18 OP

Hey, Sam, grumpyduck Sep 18 #1

Which Is Really The Point ProfessorGAC Sep 18 #31

There is nothing in the Constitution that recognizes Delmette2.0 Sep 18 #37

But if not the SCOTUS, who or what? RidinWithHarris Sep 18 #2

Tough question. What do other countries do on the issue of constitutionality? tinrobot Sep 18 #4

That's a really good question Nasruddin Sep 18 #10

The congress and the states can change/amend the constitution to madinmaryland Sep 18 #12

Apparently markodochartaigh Sep 18 #13

If that actually would work Congress could way too easily violate our constitutional rights RidinWithHarris Sep 18 #33

Personally I would rather have the power in markodochartaigh Sep 18 #35

Not me. That power would only require 267 of those 535 to want to fuck us over RidinWithHarris Sep 18 #36

Yeah, no. Mysterian Sep 18 #34

Present system should work. Codifer Sep 18 #29

Chuck Schumer rolls out 'No Kings Act' to eliminate presidential immunity LetMyPeopleVote Sep 18 #3

Republicans will rush to embrace Shumer's No Kings (or Queens) Act after Kamala wins. Marcuse Sep 18 #7

Z'at Guy Fawkes? Kid Berwyn Sep 18 #17

It is King Charles I of England who quite literally wnylib Sep 18 #24

Thank you! The English speaking peoples have such a complicated history. Kid Berwyn Sep 18 #39

Meet King Charles I. He was subject to a previous No Kings act. Marcuse Sep 18 #38

The royals really like to play up that appointed by the Creator stuff. Kid Berwyn Sep 18 #40

All Believers believe the Bible Seinan Sensei Sep 19 #42

Perhaps ReRe Sep 18 #32

Yet SCOTUS will have the final say on that. keithbvadu2 Sep 18 #5

How many divisions does the Supreme Court command? nt Shipwack Sep 18 #9

After November - when Chump loses decisively - it won't be much of an issue FakeNoose Sep 18 #14

Not a fan of this argument. Happy Hoosier Sep 18 #6

At a minimum, and expanding the court is a great idea too. nt TBF Sep 18 #8

I'd like to see a new regulation about the Presidential appointments FakeNoose Sep 18 #30

That might leave the court with empty seats for a long period. erronis Sep 19 #45

They've operated with less than full count before FakeNoose Sep 19 #46

The emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but it's ignored. surfered Sep 18 #11

Does the Constitution say that she BattleRow Sep 18 #15

I've said this before moonshinegnomie Sep 18 #16

Love this! Joinfortmill Sep 18 #18

If members of SCOTUS are removed by "Official Act" as of now... 3825-87867 Sep 18 #19

And again, the Constitution does NOT grant lifetime tenure 3825-87867 Sep 18 #22

So relitigate Marbury. former9thward Sep 18 #20

KnR! sarchasm Sep 18 #21

Everytime Roberts... RANDYWILDMAN Sep 18 #23

I've been saying this for years Farmer-Rick Sep 18 #25

I'm not sure how old you are, but if you can recall back to the early-mid 60's FakeNoose Sep 18 #28

Don't believe there is anything in the Constitution that says republianmushroom Sep 18 #26

Statements like Alito's betray a fundamental misinterpretation... -misanthroptimist Sep 18 #27

SC usurped the power to amend the Constitution V850i Sep 19 #41

This is what the criminal USSC6 fear most! They know they do not have the constitution on their side. Clouds Passing Sep 19 #43

My opinion is that the Fourth covers a woman's right to control her own body, thus abortion is her choice. mucholderthandirt Sep 19 #44