• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
32,734
Reaction score
32,868
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch (Vox)​

This is a very good, in depth article explaining the paucity of precedent or constitutional basis for the Court's aggressive interference with the administrative state. As the author puts it, the Court, "attempts to justify the major questions doctrine, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, by tying it to another legal doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution."

The other problem, of course, with the Court's imposition is that it is entirely partisan. "One sign that the major questions doctrine is best understood as a partisan effort to frustrate Democratic administrations is that it laid dormant during the entire Trump administration — the Supreme Court did not invoke it once during the four years that Trump was in office, and it’s not like Trump’s administration was shy about using executive power.

After Biden took office, however, the major questions doctrine became a mainstay of the Court’s decisions limiting the new administration’s power to govern. The Court invoked it in decisions striking down an eviction moratorium intended to slow the spread of Covid-19, blocking a requirement that most workers either vaccinate against Covid or submit to regular tests for the disease, stripping the EPA of much of its authority to regulate power plants, and in its Nebraska decision halting the student loan forgiveness program."
 
How would you recommend reforming the supreme court?

I am not a huge fan of expanding the court. But I also don't like this lifelong unaccountable thing that largely comes down to being totally random based on who dies/retires when a party has a president in office. i.e. you could end up with an entirely conservative supreme court just randomly is a bunch of liberal justices died at once.

But I'm not sure what the solution is.
 
How would you recommend reforming the supreme court?

I am not a huge fan of expanding the court. But I also don't like this lifelong unaccountable thing that largely comes down to being totally random based on who dies/retires when a party has a president in office. i.e. you could end up with an entirely conservative supreme court just randomly is a bunch of liberal justices died at once.

But I'm not sure what the solution is.

I agree. I used to believe that limiting the number of years a Justice serves would help but now with the majority of the Conservative Justices being so young; that would not help now

I know this cannot be remedied but every time I think of Amy Coney Barrett being nominated 8 days before the election and rushed through that McConnell dared to hold up the nomination by Obama 8 months before
 

How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch (Vox)​

This is a very good, in depth article explaining the paucity of precedent or constitutional basis for the Court's aggressive interference with the administrative state. As the author puts it, the Court, "attempts to justify the major questions doctrine, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, by tying it to another legal doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution."

The other problem, of course, with the Court's imposition is that it is entirely partisan. "One sign that the major questions doctrine is best understood as a partisan effort to frustrate Democratic administrations is that it laid dormant during the entire Trump administration — the Supreme Court did not invoke it once during the four years that Trump was in office, and it’s not like Trump’s administration was shy about using executive power.

After Biden took office, however, the major questions doctrine became a mainstay of the Court’s decisions limiting the new administration’s power to govern. The Court invoked it in decisions striking down an eviction moratorium intended to slow the spread of Covid-19, blocking a requirement that most workers either vaccinate against Covid or submit to regular tests for the disease, stripping the EPA of much of its authority to regulate power plants, and in its Nebraska decision halting the student loan forgiveness program."
Ian Millhiser - While I respect the man and his work, this piece is far too ideological to be taken at face value.

Ian's words:
In each of these decisions, the Court relied on something known as the “major questions doctrine,” which allows the Court to effectively veto any action by a federal agency that five justices deem to be too economically significant or too politically controversial.

This major questions doctrine, at least as it is understood by the Court’s current majority, emerged almost from thin air in the past several years.

The major questions doctrine, didn't emerge from thin air to go after Democratic administrations. A simple search would take one to -- let's start with Wikipedia.

It's been around for 20 years before Biden's administration. That would be since the year 2000. I dislike when anybody, especially somebody close to my side on an issue, has to be disingenuous, deceitful, or arguing in bad faith. Arguments against the Supreme Court's actions can be made without the bs. Me? I just like defending the truth. Even, and especially when it runs up against something I am in favor of or arguing for.



Here somebody similar too, but I'll say a bit further into the crap, gave Ian a taste of his own medicine. :D

 
How would you recommend reforming the supreme court?

I am not a huge fan of expanding the court. But I also don't like this lifelong unaccountable thing that largely comes down to being totally random based on who dies/retires when a party has a president in office. i.e. you could end up with an entirely conservative supreme court just randomly is a bunch of liberal justices died at once.

But I'm not sure what the solution is.
I don't want SCOTUS justices deciding cases while in fear for their jobs. Neither can we have a partisan senate refusing to give a president's pick a hearing for nine months hoping for a like-minded president to be elected.

How do we fix it? Do what FDR did.
 
Back
Top Bottom