just cause YOU think the SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly, doesn't make it so. you're not a judge, constitutional scholar, or even law school grad. your just a little man, compared to the Supreme Court, and they are the final arbiter of all legal matters in the USA
if that's the only version of the Constitution you have, it's available online. The US Congress has 5 checks on the US Supreme Court: 1) The Senate approves Justices nominated by the President. They also approve Federal judges who implement Supreme Court rulings. 2) Congress can impeach and remove Justices for bad behavior or incompetence. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 but acquitted. Congress has impeached 14 Federal judges, of which 8 were removed, 3 resigned, and 3 were acquitted. 3) Congress and the President can increase or decrease the number of Justices. Queen Anne of Britain destroyed the power of the House of Lords by creating new peers to pass laws every time the Lords objected, so now the mere threat of bloating the House cows rebellious lords. FDR suggested this in his “Court Packing” scheme, but Congress rejected it. FDR did change the Supreme Court over his 12 years in office by appointing 8 justices through normal vacancies. 4) Congress can pass new laws around court rulings. Most court rulings are about existing Federal law and not about the Constitution, so Congress could change those laws to better suit their intentions. They can tailor them to meet the Court’s definition of Constitutionality. 5) Congress starts the Amendment process, which can override Court rulings. An example of this is the income tax, which was deemed unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). Congress passed the 16th Amendment in 1909, which was ratified by 1913, thus rendering Pollock null regarding income taxes. https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-US-Congress-overrule-the-Supreme-Court
Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[22] such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]" In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
If Congress tries to pass laws that seek to circumvent SCOTUS rulings, SCOTUS can simply rule those new laws to be unConstitutional. if Congress tried to impeach SCOTUS judges simply because they dont agree with rulings, that would infringe upon the Seperation of Powers and bring us closer to Dictatorship. trying to stack the court with Justices that favored certain legislation, could lead to a violent revolution. The three branches are equal in power and independent. We need to respect that or we become Nazi Germany.
If Congress can't overturn SCOTUS decisions by creating a law, what checks are there on the power of SCOTUS?
Do not make this into a competition of which side of the political spectrum can cry wolf the loudest, and throw the biggest temper tantrum over not getting its way. Those who burn down their own cities, and assault others simply for where they are standing, will be held up as a shining example to demonstrate it is those who identify with the liberal mentality.
neither are you Ron but I am a constitutional scholar and a graduate of one of the finest law schools in the USA, So why should your opinions have any relevance when I note they are specious? Your idolization of government is something I find disturbing. In the eyes of the law and the founders, 6gunner is just as important as Supreme Court Justice.
Supreme Court holdings have been overruled or eviscerated by Congress. Look up the cases Sutton v United Airlines and Toyota Motor Corp v Williams
no, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the USA. 6Gunner is anonymous internet debate poster.
you did the same thing before and people who knew edified you. The sign of intelligence is being able to retain information. Why are you unable to retain information? and you made an unsupported assertion that bordered on insulting of 6Gunner-who is a well respected poster. Did you have proof of your allegations against him>
are you claiming in the USA we have orders of nobility? are you denying a citizen is less important than some politician?
You never proved any of your amazing claims on this forum. You expect us to just believe these fantasies?
LOL, Maryland v Baltimore Radio doth protest too much. Its clear that all those justices understand the consequences of not reviewing, will be that an entire circuit court jurisdiction will be bound by that lower court ruling, they cannot be too unhappy with that result if they cannot find 4 votes to grant cert. If the same process happens in more than one circuit court decision, and they let more than one decision stand, it sends a message to other courts, and they damn well know it! That is exactly the process by which same sex marriage became the law of the land. One district decision not reviewed and overturned, then another, then another. That was sending a clear signal, and SCOTUS knew they were doing it.
>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<< After observing posts of members over time it isn’t that difficult to ferret personalities of members by the content of their posts because a certain consistency emerges of their values, core principles, motives, honesty, knowlege, experience, biases, choices of posts they tend to respond to, ‘likes’ they give, the kinds of attacks, their chosen adversaries, interjection of emotion or not, etc. While there is certainly some level of internet anonymity, over time a shared opinion (some times expressed by multiple post by multiple members) becomes developed by community who collectively recognize disrupting trolls, gamers, foreigners, the sincere, the dishonest, the knowledgeable, and in a few cases, probably even identity (pretty sure I know two). Like any good passive interrogation, inconsistencies in statements/claims over time become collectively remembered and when a member is challenged for their knowlege it becomes instructive to see who joins that challenge (think Sten auto Sear by the self proclaimed auto expert)...over time, a profile of character, motive, credibility and consistency is revealed where it isn’t that difficult to anticipate how a member will respond in a discussion. A measure of credibility is built over time. Dishonest claims eventually get revealed because they can’t be maintained over time, particularly, when measured for consistence across various different discussions. And, when challenging accusations are applied regarding a member’s knowlege and experience, long time members consider the credibility, culmilatively built or diminished over hundreds of posts in discussions, of both the object and the source. So, while there is a level of internet anonymity, the primary ones deceived are those that think they can deceive the entire member community.
Denial of Cert is not acceptance of the cases. Its denial of cert only. Period. This is bedrock basic jurisprudence. Stop spreading this ignorant bullshit
When it suits their narrative Libs/anti gun types like to sell a narrative of meaning, almost selling it as a precedent.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I post a series of comments that I think are perfectly legitimate discourse, and the mods deleted them as "flamebait"?? Whatever. I'm about done with this crap.
