American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[Comerciante]

You would bet on this in a scenario where the state has collapsed to such a degree that SCOTUS feels confident enough to finally declare themselves kings?

They aren’t ever going too. This is pure fantasy.

High Fantasy or Low?

[San Lumen]

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

By this logic they could have removed Nixon from office. Oh wait they didn’t as the power of impeachment rests with Congress.

[American Legionaries]

They aren’t ever going too. This is pure fantasy.

High Fantasy or Low?

Dark Fantasy fo' sho'.

[Arlenton]

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

I am the Senate! SCOTUS!

They literally ruled that they themselves have final say over virtually every aspect of government in the country. And everyone just goes with it. Fucking wild.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

By this logic they could have removed Nixon from office. Oh wait they didn’t as the power of impeachment rests with Congress.

Your faith in a system that was brought to its knees on Jan 6 this very year and had to be rescued by the Virginia State Police is amazing, and terrible.

[Diahon]

in practice, most of the powers the supreme court wields over the final interpretation of any law -- theoretically tyrannical, that is -- doesn't get used, because its justices usually have better sense than admit to its docket appeals over, say, whether or not green is blue or vice versa, which is itself the product of two centuries of laborious, costly precedent about how lawsuits are processed by american courts

so in other words: you've scared san lumen enough, guys, have a move on

[Arlenton]

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

By this logic they could have removed Nixon from office. Oh wait they didn’t as the power of impeachment rests with Congress.

You don't think a SCOTUS majority that, for whatever reason, could take any case and issue a ruling that twists all sorts of stuff into removing Richard Nixon from office?

Well in this scenario, your assertion would be unconstitutional.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

in practice, most of the powers the supreme court wields over the final interpretation of any law -- theoretically tyrannical, that is -- doesn't get used, because its justices usually have better sense than admit to its docket appeals over, say, whether or not green is blue or vice versa

so in other words: you've scared san lumen enough, guys, have a move on

Y'all got 6 guys on there for life now that probably wouldnt care too much about status quo if push came to shove tho.

[San Lumen]

in practice, most of the powers the supreme court wields over the final interpretation of any law -- theoretically tyrannical, that is -- doesn't get used, because its justices usually have better sense than admit to its docket appeals over, say, whether or not green is blue or vice versa

so in other words: you've scared san lumen enough, guys, have a move on

You haven’t scared me at all. ludicrous stuff like this doesn’t scare me.

[Rusozak]

in practice, most of the powers the supreme court wields over the final interpretation of any law -- theoretically tyrannical, that is -- doesn't get used, because its justices usually have better sense than admit to its docket appeals over, say, whether or not green is blue or vice versa

so in other words: you've scared san lumen enough, guys, have a move on

Y'all got 6 guys on there for life now that probably wouldnt care too much about status quo if push came to shove tho.

Well theoretically they can be impeached, but you know. Whole process probably takes longer than their life expectancy.

[American Legionaries]

i am amazed at those who look at the impending suffering of those they have no opinion about one way or another, see what's on their table, and go "not my problen! now where's my dibs?"

People have a remarkable ability to overlook the suffering of others if it alleviates their own suffering.

[The Black Forrest]

By this logic they could have removed Nixon from office. Oh wait they didn’t as the power of impeachment rests with Congress.

You don't think a SCOTUS majority that, for whatever reason, could take any case and issue a ruling that twists all sorts of stuff into removing Richard Nixon from office?

Well in this scenario, your assertion would be unconstitutional.

Back then? No. People had a sense of integrity.

Nixon would have loved todays senate. All the repubs would have supported Nixon.

[The Black Forrest]

i am amazed at those who look at the impending suffering of those they have no opinion about one way or another, see what's on their table, and go "not my problen! now where's my dibs?"

People have a remarkable ability to overlook the suffering of others if it alleviates their own suffering.

At least they give thoughts and prayers.

[Comerciante]

in practice, most of the powers the supreme court wields over the final interpretation of any law -- theoretically tyrannical, that is -- doesn't get used, because its justices usually have better sense than admit to its docket appeals over, say, whether or not green is blue or vice versa, which is itself the product of two centuries of laborious, costly precedent about how lawsuits are processed by american courts

so in other words: you've scared san lumen enough, guys, have a move on

NEVER!

I'm committed to it now and am permanently locked in.

[American Legionaries]

People have a remarkable ability to overlook the suffering of others if it alleviates their own suffering.

At least they give thoughts and prayers.

Indeed.

[Diahon]

I am the Senate! SCOTUS!

They literally ruled that they themselves have final say over virtually every aspect of government in the country. And everyone just goes with it. Fucking wild.

you can have thousands of little courts declaring themselves they are the law (in which case you might as well have sovereign states), andrew jackson types declaring the supreme court ain't the law (big caudillo energy, that one), or the supreme court declaring itself the law

pick your poison

[American Legionaries]

They literally ruled that they themselves have final say over virtually every aspect of government in the country. And everyone just goes with it. Fucking wild.

you can have thousands of little courts declaring themselves they are the law (in which case you might as well have sovereign states), andrew jackson types declaring the supreme court ain't the law (big caudillo energy, that one), or the supreme court declaring itself the law

pick your poison

Uhhh... Yes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They literally ruled that they themselves have final say over virtually every aspect of government in the country. And everyone just goes with it. Fucking wild.

you can have thousands of little courts declaring themselves they are the law (in which case you might as well have sovereign states), andrew jackson types declaring the supreme court ain't the law (big caudillo energy, that one), or the supreme court declaring itself the law

pick your poison

America dear... how did you get this far with only one civil war? :thinking:

[Diahon]

You don't think a SCOTUS majority that, for whatever reason, could take any case and issue a ruling that twists all sorts of stuff into removing Richard Nixon from office?

Well in this scenario, your assertion would be unconstitutional.

Back then? No. People had a sense of integrity.

Nixon would have loved todays senate. All the repubs would have supported Nixon.

well no

back then there was a gorge, and nixon happened to trigger it first

in this the gop was singularly fortunate, for that meant there were no more firsts to make a fuss off

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

For srs tho
Love how Canada is on the way of outlawing conversion therapy (read torture) while its next door neighbour is busy considering whether or not abortions are gay.

[Diahon]

you can have thousands of little courts declaring themselves they are the law (in which case you might as well have sovereign states), andrew jackson types declaring the supreme court ain't the law (big caudillo energy, that one), or the supreme court declaring itself the law

pick your poison

America dear... how did you get this far with only one civil war? :thinking:

well, first, you have to have the cackling evil side lose the war and win the peace, bag the proceeds, then proceed to use the money to demonize everyone who wanted in on the democracy bit

and who knows, with one side thirsting and thrusting for power above all else, and the other too goddamn civil to do shit, it might well be a repeat of 1877 without the civil war

first a fucking waste, now not even

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, the Democratic Party can go mask off and back to being essentially the Republican Party and a new party can fill the void to the left of that and it would just be like when the Whigs disappeared and the Republicans appeared. We're just shuffling hats but overtly rejecting coo coo bananas people that are only voted for because they're the ones addressing your pet issue.

But if Trump didn't cause the Republican party to implode then they're not going anywhere. We're just a nation with coo coo bananas in our cereal and the least unified, least organized side of the electorate has to figure a way to plug the dam while simultaneously invent a new water management system by arguing amongst themselves apparently.

So this like a political lifecycle or is it like how a phoenix is reborn from its ashes? The old party dies and a new one takes its place and the other party reverts to as it was until it runs through the cycle

Things shift and evolve. The Republicans were formed as an abolitionist party and now they're the ones supporting people carrying the very flag they rallied against. Meanwhile it was the Democrats were so pro-slavery that a lot of them left the union to protect that peculiar institution. Right up to about the sixties the parties were more or less reversed, at least culturally. The Civil Rights Act caused a shift and the Republicans developed the Southern Strategy that they currently ride today. It took about a hundred years for the parties to fundementally shift from where they were at the civil war, we're sixty or so years out from that. That's why you should look askance at anyone trying to sell you 'as it was so shall it be' kinds of predictions. Over the course of the next forty years who the fuck knows what will happen. Since we'll be living in the full tilt dawn of a new global climate and I don't know...the Omega variant of COVID-19. I don't know. This time 2019 everyone was pretty sure how things were gonna go in 2020, guess how right they were?

[Kowani]

Jeffrey Clark's lawyer writes that based on their research, the Jan. 6 committee lacks authority to issue depositions and so he won't testify. He says the committee is improperly constituted because, among other things, Liz Cheney is no longer a real Republican and the Republican counsel didn't push back enough against the Democrats

[Cannot think of a name]

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

Wait, you know the case was brought before them and your pants on head stupid argument and it was dismissed as a pants on head stupid argument, right?

Also, the Supreme Court does not just look at laws and go, "Nah..." Challenges to those laws have to go through the lower courts until they get to the Supreme Court and if that challenge were reintroduced the lower courts would consider that pants on head stupid challenge a settled matter and be done before lunch.

[Diahon]

Jeffrey Clark's lawyer writes that based on their research, the Jan. 6 committee lacks authority to issue depositions and so he won't testify. He says the committee is improperly constituted because, among other things, Liz Cheney is no longer a real Republican and the Republican counsel didn't push back enough against the Democrats

bold move, cotton

feelings have been facts for a long while on this side, but this is a new one