The supreme court is a governmental institution which has some of the least amount of checks and balances. Individuals are appointed for life, on the sole authority of the sitting president. They...
The supreme court is a governmental institution which has some of the least amount of checks and balances. Individuals are appointed for life, on the sole authority of the sitting president. They answer to no one but themselves. Yes, congress has to "approve" them, but up until recent history this was merely a formality.
While that is true, it is also an extremely dark road. It's basically saying "fuck our constitutional order, I'll make my own" - or maaaybe one step short of it. To ignore the court is to...
While that is true, it is also an extremely dark road. It's basically saying "fuck our constitutional order, I'll make my own" - or maaaybe one step short of it. To ignore the court is to eliminate a critical part of the current checks and balances.
No, actually, because with Feinstein's unavailability they didn't have the votes to make it a formal summons. So far it was an informal request. But the fact that they're forcing a formal summons...
No, actually, because with Feinstein's unavailability they didn't have the votes to make it a formal summons. So far it was an informal request.
But the fact that they're forcing a formal summons isn't a good look.
"We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."
That was my first thought. I thought we had a system of checks and balances to aid in this situation.
The supreme court is a governmental institution which has some of the least amount of checks and balances. Individuals are appointed for life, on the sole authority of the sitting president. They answer to no one but themselves. Yes, congress has to "approve" them, but up until recent history this was merely a formality.
Theoretically at least, the other branches can ignore the court the same way the court just ignored Durbin.
While that is true, it is also an extremely dark road. It's basically saying "fuck our constitutional order, I'll make my own" - or maaaybe one step short of it. To ignore the court is to eliminate a critical part of the current checks and balances.
Has not the court, by ignoring a congressional summons, not already started us down that path?
No, actually, because with Feinstein's unavailability they didn't have the votes to make it a formal summons. So far it was an informal request.
But the fact that they're forcing a formal summons isn't a good look.
Edit: Here's a decent explanation thereof.
The House can impeach a Supreme Court Justice. It only happened once, though, in 1804.
The delusional logic founded on distorting reality for the overturning of Roe v. Wade tells me we're long overdue for another.