Or they can take responsibility over their actions? Lol who am I kidding.
The courts can take responsibility over their actions? They seem to be doing most things right. Even the SC seems to be making the constitutional decision a lot of the time.
It’s the president that is stiring up his base against the courts when they rule he did something unconstitutional. And that happens almost every day.
They’re not doing anything about the president violating the constitution.
Good! We can train THEM to Write Strong Letters INSTEAD of Forcing the Judges to! Which is MUCH More Preferable than RULING on the LAWS!
Which threats? The ones from the POTUS?
Sure seems like they should start holding his administration accountable, right? RIGHT?
No, from the brownshirts who have been systematically threatening and murdering the judges and their families who oppose fascism.
So we are nearing the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession part…
Not quite.
Ok, i take it back then.
This needs to happen!!! The start of the rebels
Maybe it’s time for the Senate to start forming a Grand Army of the Republic?
We can have Luigi head up the council of Jedi
They can’t. Congress has to do that.
You say that like you genuinely believe the law matters, consider reexamining that assumption
Sure seems to.
For you maybe
The mistake your making is looking at the subject. The courts won’t do something unconstitutional. TRUMP will
So until the courts play the game of “no law” they HAVE to do that.
WE don’t.
If they have a choice at all then no they do not have to, they are choosing to, that’s just what the words mean
No. See the courts don’t make law. They interpret it. But they can’t ignore the constitution or they wouldn’t be courts.
Removed by mod
better than yours
It bears no resemblance to reality, so no not really
The courts won’t do something unconstitutional.
Why?
Are they stupid?
Because then, they wouldn’t be the courts
Who fucking cares?
you do you want something done that the courts won’t do
I don’t care that they “wouldn’t be the courts” - whatever that means. If they wouldn’t be the courts, what would they be?
I do care that they act before we fucking die.
Kind of different.
As long as Trump gets to break the rules without consequences the Dems should get to do that as well.
The courts is not the same as the dems
Supreme court could just manifest the ability to fund a system of officers of the court from thin fucking air if they wanted to.
I understand and support your irritation and disgust at this administration
But this is not how the court works. They could , hire some contractors I guess, but they cannot unilateraly create a security service
The Supreme court manifested the entire concept of jurisprudence. I think they could do the same for a system of officers of the court.
Umm. I think you have your facts mistaken or are speaking of something other than jurisprudence.
Marshall laid out his arguments for judicial review in Marbury v Madison. At the time it was supported by Hamilton and others too. But it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. Jurisprudence is entirely an unconstitutional (though consistent with other sections of the constitution) power that the courts granted themselves. It’s been a long time since my last us history class though.
Wasn’t that the US marshals?
I have recently started to learn how to use a firearm, because it feels like that the US is headed for a 2nd Civil War. Hopefully the money and time spent on that turns out to be a silly reaction…but if asked, I will serve the Free States, be it as a soldier or court marshal. Trump and the GOP is a tremendous threat to me and the other innocents of America.
You would best serve the “Free States” by helping and protecting your family, friends, and community of like-thinking associates- firearms may be required.
Can’t recommend a shotgun enough.
VR80. Semi-automatic 12 gauge, with magazines. If you live in a state like California, you can treat it as something like a split or lever action, which allows you to release the magazines. I figure semi-auto would be needed if combat becomes a thing, especially if drones start delivering pain. Shotguns are one of the more common options for anti-drone defense in Ukraine.
I am sorry, as a an outsider looking in on the US, when I read that title, I burst out laughing out of pure disbelief, I mean holy shit, this is absolute insane.
Not on the judge’s part, but that this is actually needed.
I knew it was going to be bad when Trump won the second term, I realized it was going to be worse when I understood how much power was about to be given him, I had no idea he was actually going to dismantle law and order.
This is madness.
Nobody would disagree. The problem is here though, and it needs to be dealt. At least these people intend to do something about it.
It sounds like the prequel to Snow Crash.
I mean, high speed food delivery is already an exceptionally common, and dangerous, line of pick-up work.
Yeah, but even in Snowcrash Hiro was still an actual employee.
Thats a good point.
So then uh, hooray, we’re in an even worse timeline.
It sounds like that of a typical response to a school shooting; anything but addressing the core issue. Let’s put Kevlar on the judges…
deleted by creator
Nice job reacting to the downvotes
Edit. Damn. Dude reacted so hard he deleted his reactionary comment lol
Nah, we need politicians to be able to feel fear, imo. If they never have to think “will this come back to haunt me?” then that’s going to enable a lot of awful shit.
As they should be scared. They are currently dismantling the United States… did they not think there would be ramifications?
I’m sure there are a lot of court cases i don’t hear about but they seem to be siding with the constitution most of the time.
Honestly, I have the impression that they don’t. The 1% already won the game of life, but they insist on doubling down and gambling the nation for…line go up?
The wealthy are addicts without restraint.
If judges are being threatened by POTUS they need to issue an arrest warrant.
Deputize a citizens milita and arrest him.
So what happens if the thugs in the DoJ clash with this judicial security? Are they prepared to turn their weapons on the DoJ officers? If not, then this is only to protect judges from stochastic terrorism at the hands of tRump supporters. Dark passages up ahead, I fear.
If they aren’t ready to put down fascist jackboots they aren’t gonna be able to do the job.
The DOJ is subordinate to the Judiciary, regardless of what these assclowns are trying to cosplay.
The Judiciary is equal to Executive and Congress. That’s just a fucking fact. A Federal Judges ruling has the same weight as any bullshit Executive Order Trump can crap out on paper.
The DOJ is subordinate to the Judiciary
Maybe crack open a book on US government or read an encyclopedia article: Department of Justice is department of the executive branch. Historically, they started out as the federal government’s attorneys/prosecutors.
The judicial branch only has the federal courts, its judges, its administrators.
Maybe crack open a dictionary and understand what subordinate means.
If the Judicial Branch is equal to Executive, then any subordinate of the Executive is subordinate to the Judiciary.
Y’all gotta learn more.
Not how government works: they’re independent branches.
Not only are you wrong, you’re intentionally making yourself ignorant if you don’t educate yourself: https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
Literally from a government website.
Checks & balances don’t mean “any subordinate of the Executive is subordinate to the Judiciary”: they’re still separate/independent branches with limited powers to keep each other in check. It’s called separation of powers.
Checks by the judicial branch are scant: pretty much declare legislation & executive actions unconstitutional. It’s powerless to enforce. Prosecutorial discretion remains with the prosecutor.
The Department of Justice is under the executive branch: quit willfully ignoring that/pretending that means anything else. We get the government we have, not the government as we wish it were.
It LITERALLY means that a subordinate anything of any branch of government is just that. SUB-waitforit-ORDINATE. The words are right there in the link I sent you.
Stop trolling and start learning instead of spreading you absolutely insane and uneducated crap here.
That seems to matter little to this regime. So, I ask again, what happens when they clash? We saw them stage a situation and try to arrest sitting members of congress and a mayor. In a sane world, you are correct. We don’t live in that world so subordination doesn’t matter!
Those are only facts if someone enforces it at the business end of a weapon.
The only fact that matters is whose orders are the cops going to enforce.
deleted by creator
That’s such an EU thing to do 😄
I was thinking that maybe the US could use three presidents - West, East, and Center, each heading up a major chunk of territory. SCOTUS could be expanded to have 50 justices, each state appointing a single justice to represent them on the supreme court. The presidents each could select a single head justice, whose job is to communicate the viewpoint of the executives, and to write up the conclusions that SCOTUS factions have reached.
That sort of thing should help maintain the intention of the Constitution, where branches - or rather, interests, constantly jockey against each other, thus being equal. The problem with our current politics is that too much power has been concentrated into the hands of too few people, essentially destroying the balance of branches.
Giving each state equal representation without a population distribution that is exactly equal across every state inherently devalues the representation of those in population centers, giving disproportionate power to a party that is outnumbered but is spread out over the much emptier land. Equal rep must be based proportionally off of population to avoid devaluing individual voter influence.
I think that in the case of the judiciary’s supreme court, having a huge amount of people would be a ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ problem. The important thing is a diversity of viewpoints who can argue on the technical (and moral) merits of the topic. Each state should send their most capable justice who can persuade their peers.
The way I figure, such an expanded SCOTUS would naturally form four or five cliques of 10-20 members apiece, who work with head justices to articulate their viewpoints into a dissertation on the topic. These proposals are examined and held to a vote, with the weakest being removed from the running - at which point, a rewrite is done on the remaining proposals by aligned cliques, voted on, and repeated until only one remains. Head justices do not get to vote, unless there is an exact tie among rulings.
…honestly, it would be good if there was a scientific research institute, dedicated to trying out political concepts like this in a simulated setting. The big problem of theoretical political systems is that they typically have to be applied to real-world people, which causes no end of social chafing. Having an MMO or roleplay to research these things, may go a long way towards healthy implementations.
While nice in theory, that’s not how partisan politics works in practice. What’s going to happen is that the absurdly large proportion of judges from conservative states will simply shout over opposition like they currently do in all other branches of government and stonewall any attempt to compromise. Gods forbid you try to push progressive ideas.
deleted by creator
I personally don’t like it, but that is because I am biased in favor of popular public voting and a term that is a decade long, plus age limits. IMO, we want our representatives in all branches to have a relatively short shelf life, so that they can change with the times. Justices were given life terms to insulate them from the need to defend their office and politics, but I have the impression that modern life moves too quickly for the timespan you proposed. The internet has more or less been around for 40 years, and much has changed in technology and society within that time frame.
To me, the ideal term and age cap is 10 and 50 years, respectively. While a 51+ year person would almost certainly still have a sound mind, they would likely have difficulty when it comes to relating with the younger members of society. Say, for example, sexting. We have (stupid) laws that treat minors as creators of CP pornography when they share dick pictures with each other, putting them on sex offender registries for life - but they could boink each other in person, and not be charged. This example is an intersection of changing technology and social norms, that an older justice might not grasp.
Anyhow, setting aside my bias: Your concept is fine, and seems to fall within line with how things have traditionally worked. 👍
That sounds remarkably similar to the court reform proposal by Pete Buttigieg. Although I don’t remember the specifics enough to say with confidence exactly how similar, I know he wanted each presidential terms to get a nomination and to remove the lifetime appointment in favor of a lengthy term. Although I think he wanted a portion of the court to be nominated by the justices themselves, including Chief Justice, but that was probably a more naive mindset that stemmed from a time when we had significantly more faith in the impartiality and apolitical motivations of the SCOTUS. I don’t know if that would be a good idea anymore, considering how easy it was for Trump to ratfuck the composition of the courts.
Isn’t that what the states are for? The federal government is supposed to maintain basic security and then the states are supposed to do all of the actual societal work but it all seems to have fallen apart. To be honest it had fallen apart long before Trump.
Yes that’s how it’s supposed to work. People like to point at Trump but Trump would not have been able to do this were it not for the fact that every president before him has given itself more and more power. He’s simply an opportunist.
This is also the thing Republicans have been harping about for ages. They don’t want to tear down the federal government because they want people to die or because they’re “fascists”. They want to tear it down because its current iteration of it has far more power than was ever intended when the constitution was drafted and it empowers and makes tyranny possible.
The New Deal needs to be replaced with something new that decentralizes power from the federal government while keeping the social nets that were established.
West, East, and Center, each heading up a major chunk of territory
Fuck no. Don’t lump us minnesotans in with basically exclusively red shithole states.
Yeah I’m starting to think that a triumvirate is the way to go for the office of the president. Let’s have a head of state, a head of government, and a head of _____ idk. But the job is too intense for one individual and we need an escape hatch while also having stability. So we could impeach the head of state but keep the head of government so shit still gets done during that transition.
That’s been tried in a certain republic of the past, but the idea is fine generally.
Everything is fine. We’re completely fucked.
