Chuck Schumer’s ambitious plan to take the Supreme Court down a peg - eviltoast
  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    In Trump v. United States (2024) …

    That is the most accurate possible name for the supreme court’s recent decision.

  • cybervseas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Senate shenanigans are always fun to read about.

    Also, we learned that they’re “separate but equal” branches of government in school. Let’s see if the legislative branch can claw back some level of influence.

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    So now introducing bills and doing their fucking jobs is “ambitious?” These sucker’s make like $200k just in base salary and are the most unproductive decade of Congress I think ever.

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Constitutional Amendment is more bulletproof, but a much heavier lift.

    This one will end up at SCOTUS, with an expected outcome. Slow moving trains and all.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Court wouldn’t have jurisdiction. They could overstep their authority anyway but it’d probably become a constitutional crisis.

      • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        As opposed to the other times in recent memory that they overstepped their authority, lied about the facts, and rewrote laws and the constitution?

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Lying about the facts and rewriting laws isn’t legally prohibited. This is different because it would be the Supreme Court breaking the law if it viewed a case outside its jurisdiction… or, well, it could be different. It depends on whether the other two branches of government just roll over and let them do it. If Schumer is willing to use jurisdictional stripping the Democrats might be willing to go even farther if the Court decided to ignore the law. Hence, constitutional crisis.

  • surge_1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Earlier this week, President Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Trump

    Lol

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    Get it to the floor and make them all vote on the record. That vote will haunt them in the post-Trump era. May even help shoot down some rising stars down the line.

    • Icalasari@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      From what I’ve seen others state, the plan is for the Republicans to lose, then enough politicians call foul play that it goes to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court lets the politicians pick and they override the will of the people. So it wouldn’t haunt them in that case

      • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think you’re right that this is the high level game plan, but it does require them to be in spitting distance of a win vs. blatantly overturning an obvious loss. The past week or so feels more hopeful than normal they won’t manage that (but it’s not too late for a procession of October Surprises)

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Couldn’t they FOIA the judges’ financial records, and if money came from Trumps mafia, associate it to the conflict of interest around the ruling?

    Then the ruling could be argued invalid because of alleged bribery.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is a good move. Thrg just need to be careful to preclude somehow giving an opening for the court to hear it via original jurisdiction. Congress can only limit the court’s appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 months ago
    Vox Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Name: Vox Bias: Left
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.