With everything that is happening this week and the republicans refusing to do anything about Trump got me wondering why can't the Supreme Court do anything? 2 of the government branch is clearly undermining everything in the constitution and it feels like the Judicial branch can't do anything.... the check and balances seems completely broken to me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why can't the Supreme Court do anything to the president?
- Thread starter kIdMuScLe
- Start date
- 106
Jag
Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 6,238
- 10
- 630
hydrophilic attack
Member
- Jan 20, 2010
- 16,691
- 28
- 890
QuantumBro
Banned
- Mar 15, 2011
- 5,972
- 1
- 0
- 27
To Far Away Times
Member
- Apr 3, 2009
- 10,795
- 3
- 0
Vote in the midterms and we can start the impeachment process. Obstruction of justice with the Comey firing should be enough all by itself.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Back in ye olden days the federal government as written/created did not take into account 50 states nor a 2-party dominance in the political spectrum; it hasn't changed to accommodate society over the years.
titiklabingapat
Member
- Apr 10, 2007
- 15,230
- 0
- 0
Poltergust
Member
They can't do whatever they please. They only have jurisdiction over the cases brought over to them.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Xando
Member
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
- Mar 16, 2007
- 61,123
- 0
- 0
Democrats have no way to get the Senate.
The House is actually way more attainable. They will pick a lot of seats but not necessarily enough.
Squirrel Killer
Member
- Oct 8, 2004
- 9,016
- 132
- 1,535
The Supreme Court acts on court cases that work their way through the judicial process up to them. That hasn't happened yet.
I H8 Memes
Member
- Jun 19, 2011
- 11,405
- 3
- 0
You cant be serious. That's not how the branches of the government counter-balance each other. Is the Supreme Court gonna send out there elite hit squad to take people out?
painey
Member
Viewt
Member
I mean, what can they do? The Supreme Court is there to hear cases. Unless a case is brought before them, there's nothing in their job description that would allow them to do anything to the President. They can't arrest him - that's the FBI's job. And they can't impeach him - that's the House of Representatives' job.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Bolivar687
Banned
The Supreme Court can only hear cases between adverse parties for which it has jurisdiction.
It is entirely within the rights of the President to fire the FBI Director.
What parts of the Constitution do you feel are being threatened?
It is entirely within the rights of the President to fire the FBI Director.
What parts of the Constitution do you feel are being threatened?
I H8 Memes
Member
- Jun 19, 2011
- 11,405
- 3
- 0
This thread is probably headed for Locksville. So I just want to say to you people, please remember to vote Terry Crews for President in 2020.
Etrian Oddity
Member
JonnyDBrit
Member
- May 14, 2015
- 7,470
- 5
- 0
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
- Mar 3, 2011
- 39,534
- 18
- 900
Because the constitution can be subverted if at least 2 out of 3 branches are willing. For the Supreme Court to challenge anything of Trump's, they need to be presented a case they can decide on and they mostly hesitate to take on anything that "defines" the language or intent of the constitution because a lot of it really is vague. Marriage equality is one of the most recent examples. So far Ryan and McConnell could care less what the executive does as long as their agenda (and control) can be furthered. Republicans learned from and have gotten even more conservative since Nixon. It's why the only way Trump is removed from office will be from the election in 2020.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
- Mar 16, 2007
- 61,123
- 0
- 0
There isn't a case "about Trump" that will come to them. The travel ban will get there it just takes forever.
Only 1 person can arrest the president and is not the FBI... is the Senate Sergeant at Arms
And I know but more like I'm asking the Court should have some sort of clause that they could investigate and send a recommendation for impeachment? I don't know
Could always go for recess appointments and stack the supreme court with as many new members as he likes, no?
WonkyPanda
Member
- May 16, 2007
- 5,082
- 0
- 1,045
FyreWulff
Member
Lord Frieza
Member
- Feb 11, 2016
- 9,334
- 0
- 0
Bruce Springsteen
Member
- Sep 15, 2015
- 6,610
- 0
- 0
The now 5-4 conservative Supreme Court?
And the court can't actively do anything, that's not how it works
And the court can't actively do anything, that's not how it works
Not from the US, are ya? Or if you are, you didn't pay attention in Social Studies or Civics
The Albatross
Member
- Apr 15, 2010
- 25,110
- 2
- 835
Most reasonable post in this thread.
No, the Supreme Court has a fixed number of members. And Supreme Court justices cannot be appointed by recess appointment.
FDR, though, basically tried to take over the Supreme Court when he was president. It failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
Marty Chinn
Member
- Jun 6, 2004
- 31,449
- 0
- 1,585
Man the OP is a perfect example of why we're in the mess that we are in now; people don't understand how things work and have weird assumptions of how they think they work.
BS! The supreme Court's authority to rule on questions of constitutionality, they have it to themselves!
IIRC
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
- Mar 3, 2011
- 39,534
- 18
- 900
The Albatross
Member
- Apr 15, 2010
- 25,110
- 2
- 835
You see this idea fairly often, and it's a wrong one.
The Constitution can be amended. It's been amended 27 times, and amendments can be amended by other amendments.
Beyond that, it's historically innaccurate that the crafters of the constitution or the founders of the United States were incapable of considering a "2 party system" or the idea that the US would have 50 states. Since about as early as the nations founding there was a desire for the country to grow as it became larger and more powerful. And, since even before the founding of the US, the concept of fairly static political parties was ingrained in the DNA of the nation. Remember, the US is a bicameral legislature and is a descendant of bicameral legislatures; the concept of two representative bodies is a normal concept, and "parties" extending from that is normal. And the concept of two distinct groups was as common when the Constitution was being crafted as it is today, between Republicans and Democrats, as most prominent politicians belong to either the Federalist group of Anti-Federalist group. This was the defining division of the country for the first 40 or so years of it existing, before proper political parties took over.
I think it's also overstated how much the parties speak with one voice. As fucked up as the Republican party is, right now, remember, there were 18 candidates for president under the Republican party in 2016... And at least 6 (or more) who were very distinct from one another. Ultimately, that's how a goon like Trump became president, by being a strong-arm in a field of competitors.
Beyond that, though, the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution weren't idiots.
It is. The judiciary has always been the weakest link in the system. I think more robust presidential systems would cede some electoral oversight and investigative powers for government officials to the judiciary, or at least, permit it in parallel with the other branches.
Both the executive branch and the legislature can investigate themselves and each other, and as a collective pair wield absolute control over the structure of the judiciary and its appointees.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
- Mar 16, 2007
- 61,123
- 0
- 0
It is interesting that Supreme Courts do have more powers of removing rogue lawmakers/executives from office in other countries, like how Park Gyun-He's fate was decided in the South Korean supreme court, whereas here only the Chief Justice plays a role as judge and the Senate the jury in the US impeachment process.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
- May 21, 2006
- 17,232
- 4
- 0
What is "everything that is happening this week"?
The Judiciary's role is to review laws and actions to ensure their consistency with the constitution if a party who is harmed by the laws/actions requests them to do so. How does that fit in to the story?
LegendofJoe
Member
The Supreme Court checks legislative overreach. Congress is the branch of government with the power to check executive overreach. But since the GOP controls Congress there is no effective check on Trump. We only have the media and people within the federal government itself to stand up to him.