your regular reminder that Judicial Review is not anywhere written in the Constitution but "participants in an insurrection are automatically barred from holding office" is. - ThreadSky

mtsw.bsky.social • 281 days ago

your regular reminder that Judicial Review is not anywhere written in the Constitution but "participants in an insurrection are automatically barred from holding office" is.

Reposted from jamelle

if already wasn’t apparent from his behavior on the court, Alito is straightforwardly an insurrectionist and should not be there. www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/u...

Comments

svenkoprek.bsky.social•281 days ago

But as we know, every amendment except for the second is just optional

mtsw.bsky.social•281 days ago

"ah this legislative power that overrules the other branches of government is so obvious that we don't even need to write it down" is not how the rest of the constitution was drafted https://bsky.app/profile/aih.bsky.social/post/3kt4gcqbghy2k

mtsw.bsky.social•281 days ago

You would think this would be something you might want to clarify when moving from the English legal system which lacks any written constitution whatsoever to one based on a written constitution that has supremacy over other laws but maybe they just forgot?

nh4n3.bsky.social•281 days ago

Congress: Writes a healthcare law with clear intent but arguably ambiguous legal language.

SCOTUS: Oops! No healthcare :(

Framers: [ this space intentionally left blank]

SCOTUS: This was clearly intended to give me unchecked power

mtsw.bsky.social•281 days ago

Fair point https://bsky.app/profile/jbouie.bsky.social/post/3kt4grf4e222w

ryanlcooper.com•281 days ago

it wasn't like it is today though. from 1776 through most of the 19th century strong judicial review was highly controversial and contested by multiple presidents and most members of Congress

jamellebouie.net•281 days ago

right. judicial review was 1) part of the anglo-american legal tradition by 1787 and 2) more or less anticipated by the framers but the strong form of judicial review that developed through the 19th century — and the judicial supremacy that emerged in the 20th — are highly contestable.

samulmschneider.bsky.social•281 days ago

and furthermore, the increasingly sanctified cultural baggage of the Court and judicial review that emerged out of the 1950s and 1960s was even farther from the longer standing way the Court was involved in politics/viewed as political than the simultaneously evolving view of judicial supremacy was.

bagelsnfox.bsky.social•281 days ago

Something I’ve genuinely never understood about SCOTUS (and I’m no scholar so bear with me) is…what is the point SCOTUS if judicial review doesn’t exist? Just to be the final word on any appeal?

publicuniversal.bsky.social•281 days ago

how would you define the difference here?

enbuenora.bsky.social•281 days ago

the attitude on the right is that since liberals somehow got away with the Supes not ethering away everything in the New Deal and declaring segregation un-Constitutional, forever on out *their* Supes gets to do absolutely whatever they want however they want as many times as they can

mesarthim.bsky.social•281 days ago

The true constitution is as follows:

1. Republicans can always tell you what to do.
2. You can never tell Republicans what to do.

Any deviation from this is of course un-American!!!

jamellebouie.net•281 days ago

the problem here is that judicial review existed in the colonial system as well. it was a part of the anglo-american legal system for at least a half century before independence.

kerkhovia.bsky.social•281 days ago

Didn't they debate if it should be in the Constitution and if they should have the power though? One of the arguments against it being in the Constitution was that Congress could then legislate away judicial review.

chathamharrison.bsky.social•281 days ago

It was hot & Gouverneur Morris WOULD NOT SHUT UP so we might have skipped over it that day okay geez

kuriva.im•281 days ago

He was just yammering on and on about "blah blah the 3/5 stuff is a disgrace" and yeah, Gouvy, we heard you the first time jeez

mwwaters.bsky.social•281 days ago

It would be odd to have an involved, lengthy process for amendments when a legislative act has the same force and the amendment would just be for vibes.

aih.bsky.social•281 days ago

It's a judicial power, not a legislative one. If the judiciary is powerless to enjoin the government from breaking the law just as it can with any other actor, the whole idea of rule of law is meaningless.

cafealopex.bsky.social•279 days ago

yeah, they have the power to tell the government that, but at the end of the day compliance is just as voluntary as it would be without judicial review. see: jackson, andrew.

gloomygus.bsky.social•281 days ago

It's constitutional for the President to add additional seats to the Supreme Court without congressional approval if the newly-packed Supreme Court says so.

onbluskysku.bsky.social•281 days ago

Not to be the rain on the parade dork but that isn’t in the constitution unless you already hold office (ofc Alito *does*)

marieo.bsky.social•281 days ago

For some reason the Supreme Court has looked right past the insurrection clause in the constitution. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be at risk of another Trump Presidency.

doncarlostoledo.bsky.social•281 days ago

Next you'll tell me that "The President has a free pass to break the law, in fact he is more omnipotent than post-Magna Carta royalty" isn't written in the Constitution either

buckeyedpeas.bsky.social•281 days ago

as a phillies fan i desperately need biden to reclaim the mantle of Most Prominent Phillies Fan Politician, no reason the 2022 NL pennant can't be flying from the white house too

bodiva.bsky.social•281 days ago

That would be Jill Biden.

kurtrisser.bsky.social•280 days ago

SCOTUS judges cannot be trusted to faithfully uphold the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution. They have betrayed their country, and broken their oaths of office.
The Supreme Court judges bring great shame to good citizens who once trusted them to truthfully uphold the Constitution.

ferles.bsky.social•281 days ago

Yes, I would think that if you were a justice you would rule on what the constitution actually said. If you felt the insurrection clause was problematic in some way, you might argue that an amendment should be passed to deal with whatever issue it was, but until then, you follow the constitution

crgibs.bsky.social•281 days ago

I maintain that Marbury v. Madison remains the most destructive SCOTUS decision of all time

vaelis.bsky.social•281 days ago

You don’t want to know how many times I’ve said some variation on “the SC is not without electoral or political power, and if they want the ability to do judicial review, they should get an amendment”. Upholding Marbury vs. Madison is just the height of hypocrisy in an “originalist” court.

aih.bsky.social•281 days ago

Courts have the power of judicial review by virtue of the very fact that they exist. Whether a government action is compliant with the highest law of the land is a legal dispute fundamentally no different from any other, and courts are where legal disputes are resolved.

aih.bsky.social•281 days ago

Judicial review exists because if you accept that the government is obligated to abide by the highest law in the land, and that courts are the venue where legal disputes are resolved, then OF COURSE it's within the judiciary's purview to decide that a government action violates said supreme law.

aih.bsky.social•281 days ago

It's not some naked power grab or controversial decision, it's just...courts doing what courts are supposed to do.

blimple.bsky.social•281 days ago

Except when it’s a naked power grab. May I introduce you to the “major questions” doctrine

aih.bsky.social•281 days ago

That's an issue with the abuse of the power, not the power itself.

blimple.bsky.social•281 days ago

We are ruled by courts not laws. The abuse is the relevant issue imo

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply