dajo9 said:
wifeisafurd said:
The president's new commission has a lot of fans in the Federalist Society.
https://www.vox.com/2021/4/10/22375792/supreme-court-biden-commission-reform-court-packing-federalist-society
Usually I think Vox is agenda driven rubbish, but this article actually has content. Seems like Biden is making a deal with SCOTUS not to pack the court. Biden can always change the composition of the Commission if SCOTUS finds his major legislation or regulatory action illegal.
SCOTUS shouldn't have the authority to overrule Congress on a power the Constitution specifically grants to Congress
This statement does not make any legal sense. The Constitution has a hierarchy of powers. The preamble is not just words. It specifically sets out that the people give the power to the federal government, as opposed to the states doing so in the Articles of Confederation. "We the people of the United States...establish this Constitution". Therefore, every power the Constitution grants to Congress is subject to the overriding rights that the people are given. Further, certain rights are granted to the states. There is an interplay in all of these rights. Congress cannot abridge the rights of the others in exercising its authority.
I'll take, for instance, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was clearly unconstitutional on its face. Congress acted within their authority in passing that law. In so doing they violated the individual rights of same sex couples. They also clearly overstepped their authority in regulating what is a state matter - determining marriage laws, and they overstepped their authority in essentially trying to override the full faith and credit clause. Further, clearly for any federal benefit, like social security, Congress has the authority to pass eligibility requirements. That does not mean they could say that all federal benefits that go to a spouse will only go to a spouse of a heterosexual couple. Or a same race couple. But that is the result of what you are proposing.
The court DOES NOT overrule Congress on any power the Constitution specifically grants to Congress unless Congress uses that power in an unconstitutional manner. Period. Full stop. So what you are saying either means nothing - the court can just say, yeah, sure dajo. we agree. and move on as it always has. Or it means everything, that if the Constitution grants Congress a power, the court has no ability to be the arbiter of whether Congress' action violates other parts of the Constitution, like say the First Amendment.
The latter argument that has become prevalent in, pardon my offense, completely brainless left wing discourse is too short sighted to see how their arguments would be disastrous to anyone who believes in left wing ideals. Without the Supreme Court ruling on the actions of states and congress, the Constitution would be a suggestion not a mandate. I could go on for months listing the awful things that would have been enacted without the Supreme Court. Further, there a lot of actions not taken for fear of being struck down after a lengthy litigation.
90% of the time, at least, that liberals get upset with the Supreme Court, they are upset that the Supreme Court did not strike down laws, not that they struck down laws. When you are upset that the Supreme Court does not strike something down a law, understand that without the court the law would have faced no challenge at all. The Supreme Court takes a lot of blame for actions of Congress and states that they do not endorse but they do not believe they have the right to strike down.
For every Citizen's United there are about 10 Brown's and about 1000 things we wish legislatures wouldn't do but it is within their right to do them.
Lastly, Congress' power has been dramatically expanded in the last 70 years. They don't need more power. They need to stop being ineffectual.