Based on what exactly? The point isnt whether a branch CAN do it. The point is who determines whether what they are disregarding is right or wrong. We are just supposed to take that based on “trust me bro?”. You can pretty much make up any legalese for what you want to do. Which is why none of these ghouls are ever held accountable. The same can be done by Trump or anyone else too. This isn’t a system of checks and balances. This is eroding checks and balances and executive overreach. It is exactly “its okay because we did it.” That is all I heard with bernie backstabbing, with primaries right now, with Biden ouster. its okay for us to undermine every shred of demcoracy we have. What is the point f defeating trump when the whole Dem party becomes trump?
Oh dont protest too much. All you do is perform for spectators. Why else would you only have random claims and not backed up by any electoral math? Why would you even try to pass off judicial math as electoral math. Come on…
Nah, I dont think that will make them stop donating. They will only stop donating if Dems ever did anything to hurt their businesses. And neither repubs nor dems are THAT stupid
The argument here isn’t about one branch of government having unchecked power or the ability to disregard the Constitution at will. The principle of checks and balances ensures that each branch can act as a counterbalance to the others, preventing any single branch from overstepping its bounds.
The Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution was solidified in Marbury v. Madison. While the court has the power to declare laws and actions unconstitutional, its decisions are based on interpretations of the law, not absolute authority.
However, if a Supreme Court decision is seen as egregiously violating constitutional principles, it’s within the realm of the executive branch to resist enforcement. This isn’t a matter of “trust me bro” but a constitutional safeguard to prevent tyranny. Each branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and no branch, including the Supreme Court, is infallible.
The essence of checks and balances is precisely to avoid unilateral overreach and ensure that all branches can challenge actions that undermine the Constitution. This system is designed to protect democracy, not to erode it.
If the Supreme Court were to make a decision that blatantly violates constitutional principles, it would be the responsibility of the executive branch and legislative branch to challenge that decision, ensuring that no branch has unchecked power. This isn’t about eroding democracy but safeguarding it from any form of corrupt overreach.
The more Kamala wins by, the harder it will be for the Supreme Court to justify stealing the election. The Supreme Court can egregiously and clearly overstep the bounds of it’s authority, in which case it’s decision should not be honored, based on separation of powers principles.
You are just making my point for me. SC is the only person we have given ANY authority to interpret the law. Blatantly violates constitutional principles according to who? Democrats? Republicans? Crows on a coconut tree? If we disregard their interpretation because they don’t have absolute AUTHORITY, then that literally means Might is right. This isn’t checks and balances, this is over riding SC when two branches of government disagree. So whoever has the power wins, regardless of the interpretation of the law. You are literally defining unilateral over reach by calling SC a threat to democracy now. This is insane. I am not interested in bringing “democracy and freedom” to our country by eroding the basic principles and hijacking systems of government, TYVM. I have no interest in emulating the Shaman guy
The Supreme Court can egregiously and clearly overstep the bounds of it’s authority, in which case it’s decision should not be honored, based on separation of powers principles.
The statement that the Supreme Court is the only authority given to interpret the law is not accurate. While the Supreme Court has the final say in constitutional interpretation, all three branches of government have roles in interpreting the law within their respective functions.
- Legislative Branch: Congress interprets the Constitution when drafting laws. They consider what is constitutional and craft legislation accordingly.
- Executive Branch: The President and executive agencies interpret laws when enforcing them. Executive actions and orders are based on their interpretations of what is legal and constitutional.
While the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to resolve disputes about the constitutionality of laws (based on their own ruling in Marbury v. Madison, which is a circular argument), this does not negate the interpretative roles of the other branches. Checks and balances mean each branch can challenge or question the others’ interpretations to prevent overreach.
If the Supreme Court makes a decision perceived as egregiously violating constitutional principles, it is not about “might makes right.” Mechanisms like proposing constitutional amendments or impeachment of justices (though extreme and rare) exist to address such issues within a legal framework.
This system ensures no branch has unchecked power and that constitutional principles are upheld through a balanced and accountable process.
Nice try at deflection. The constitution considers SCOTUS the 'Final arbiter of the law". You might want to know that SCOTUS has the power to overturn executive orders as an example. As they have done many times in the past. So no, Executive doesn’t technically have power OVER SCOTUS as you seem to be alleging. You still haven’t addressed my point.
I repeat, When two Branches of government DISAGREE. Your point is SCOTUS doesn’t have any means to enforce their interpretation while the executive does. Aka might is right.
I repeat., That isn’t checks and balances any more than War on terror was an operation to bring freedom and democracy to any country. That is a power grab and a dictatorship.Plain and simple. I wont support it no matter if it is Republicans or Democrats who do it. Like i said, if I wanted to support an insurrection, I would join the Republican party.
You’re misunderstanding separation of powers. The executive branch can use its authority to enforce the law, as a check the judiciary’s ability to be the final arbiter of the Constiution. The judiciary’s power to be the final arbiter of the Constitution does not negate the executive’s constitutional duty to execute the law faithfully, in line with Constitutional principles. Just as the executive can act unlawfully, with the Supreme Court providing a check through judicial review, the executive can also check the Supreme Court. This is the essence of the separation of powers.
If the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that was clearly and indisputably unconstitutional, let’s say for example revoking the Fourth Amendment and ordering the seizure of all American property, the executive would have a Constitutional duty to disregard that ruling. Executing such a decision would violate their oath of office and their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. This scenario presumes that the Supreme Court’s decision is widely regarded as illegitimate, not a situation like Bush v. Gore, where the ruling was honored due to the close election and the Supreme Court’s plausible case for their decision. That is my point, we need to come out in big numbers, so the Supreme Court doesn’t have a plausible case to steal the election again.
No thanks, I am understanding separation of powers perfectly fine. These are co-EQUAL branches of government. All bound by constitution. While the president can implement whatever dictatorial executive order he likes, SCOTUS can overturn it. Executive isn’t ABOVE the SCOTUS.
And like I said, when they DISAGREE, then who is correct? You can frame it as “clearly and indisputably unconstitutional” but I get the feeling this is just trump - like jargon for I don’t like that judiciary ruled against me in elections. Just like he screams 2020 was rigged, you are going to scream 2204 was riggged. And only because SCOTUS ruled against Dems. Your premise is it will definitely rule against dems because there are more republican judges in SCOTUS. Just like Trump claims all the cases against him are by Dem judges. Well, then maybe Obama shouldn’t have sat on his pretty little ass and done nothing for a whole year and freaking appointed a justice. Asked RBG to resign and appoint another. We wouldn’t be in this situation then. But we didn’t do that. Now you want to say, hey the SCOTUS is crazy, I am just gonna over rule them because I want the power. Because all this BS comes out only when its elections. Why don’t we have this executive overreach to abolish Citizens United? What if some repub tomorrow declares Civil rights unconstitutional? How is this power grab any different from Trump? If you are trying to convince me to accept an insurrection just because Dems did it I wont. Like i said, I have no interest in supporting MAGA madness. Be it red or blue. You want to have a dictator, suit yourself, I wont condone this BS.
The executive’s ability to act as a check against the Supreme Court is not a dictatorship; it’s an integral part of our separation of powers system.
Let me ask, do you believe that all Supreme Court decisions should be followed without exception? Should the judiciary never be checked by the executive, regardless of how blatantly they might abuse their power?
The executive using its power to execute the law in alignment with the Constitution does not place it above the Supreme Court; it places it as an equal. If the executive were not allowed to use this power, it would be subordinate to the Supreme Court, unable to provide a necessary check.
Each branch of government has the responsibility to interpret the law and the Constitution. While the Supreme Court is considered the “final arbiter” of the Constitution, this power is not absolute and was self-proclaimed in Marbury v. Madison.
I do not support judicial supremacy, where the Supreme Court’s decisions must be followed unconditionally, regardless of their reasoning. For instance, imagine Kamala Harris wins the electoral college, all states confirm the win, but the Supreme Court, without evidence, declares Trump the winner.
Would you support the executive’s decision not to challenge such a ruling, effectively endorsing a coup because the Supreme Court declared it? In this scenario, the Supreme Court would be acting as the “dictator”. The executive should use its power within the checks and balances system to uphold the true outcome, where 50 states elected Kamala Harris and no state governments found fraud. Supporting a rogue Supreme Court in such an obvious coup seems contrary to the principles of our Constitution.
You can twist it however, you want. let me ask you one thing - is there any scenario where SCOTUS declares republicans the winner that you would consider the decision constitutional? My guess is the answer is NO. So your definition of unconstitutional is a democratic loss. THAT is the problem because THAT makes executive the dictator in this case.
You are calling it a coup because you don’t like that SCOTUS would rule against Dems. Repubs will call it an executive coup because they wont like that decision.
You whole point has nothing to do with constitutionality but with the fact that executive can enforce its decision while SCOTUS cannot. I am guessing you are also Okay with Repoubs doing this for say senate seats and then getting a house majority and impeaching said president and then having scotus over rule that decision?
I repeat, none of this has ever been talked about for things like Citizens United. This only comes when corporate ghouls want to grab power. I am not MAGA, neither blue nor RED. Stop democracy-facing and legalese-facing your insurrections, I am sick of it. And i will not support this tyranny, no matter how you try to twist it
You seem to misunderstand my position. My stance is solely focused on extreme circumstances where a Supreme Court decision would clearly force the executive branch to violate its duty to act in good faith with the Constitution.
I am agreeing that if a Supreme Court decision is not clearly illegitimate, it should be honored. The executive should only check the Supreme Court if following the decision would require the executive to act in a manner inconsistent with their duty to uphold the Constitution.
For example, if the Supreme Court were to illegitimately overrule the will of all 50 states and declare a winner based on no evidence, or if it ordered the executive to seize all private property in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the executive would have a duty to refuse to carry out these orders. These are extreme and highly unlikely scenarios, but they illustrate the point that there are circumstances where the executive must act to protect the Constitution.
I am not advocating for the executive to override the judiciary in normal circumstances, such as Bush v. Gore, where the ruling was respected despite disagreement. My position is that the executive should only act against the Supreme Court in situations where the Court’s decision is so blatantly unconstitutional that carrying it out would violate the executive’s constitutional oath or endanger the safety or constitutional rights of the public. This also includes the constitutional right to not be disenfranchised.
I will repeat my central point, we need to turn out to vote in high enough numbers so it’s a landslide against Trump and we don’t give the Supreme Court a credible justification to hand the election over to him. The closer the election is, the easier it is for the Supreme Court to steal it and get away with. If Trump loses by a big enough landslide, they won’t even try to steal it.
You still haven’t answered that. Clearly you are picking extremes because no party is going to win all 50 states. It is obviously going to be 2-3 swing states. So clearly it will be in the grey zone. So how is this extreme scenario? If you think Bush v Gore was normal, then challenges to ballots in a highly contested election are definitely normal. So what are you even fearmongering about? And no matter what you frame it as, the answer is no. I will NEVER support insurrections as grab for power to put in place dictators no matter if they have a D or R in front of their names.
This election should have never been this close. Just ;like 2016 shouldn’t have been. But the Dem party is busy infighting and fighting against its own electorate to give a sensible fight to the republicans. We don’t have to turn out to vote. The Dems have to give us something to vote for, They have to work to earn it. I don’t see them doing shit. If they think fearmongering and judicial politicking will hand them the election, they are wrong. People arent having any of that BS anymore. That is why even after everything Trump did , they are losing. Because they have no message, and no vision. if they do, I am still to understand what it exactly is. I am not talking about the party or platform. What has the campaign articulated till now as the comprehensive vision for the next 4 years? its the same old platitudes.
kamala has some bumps in polls because of people being happy with biuden dropping out and Obama endorsement. That wont last forever. She is going to have to come up with some real platform soon enough if she wants to have a shot. Clearly they want nothing to do with progressive politics. THAT is what turns people off. That is WHY people arent energised. You cant keep saying people need to vote in large numbers. Why would they when there is nothing driving them to? Identity politics wont cut it.
See above, I answered that.
I am only talking of extreme cases, in normal cases like Bush v. Gore I think it should be honored. I have explicitly said this several times. I think we are talking in circles now, but I think I have already said everything that needed to be said.
Do not accuse me of fearmongering. I was just illustrating the point that there are checks against the Supreme Court, in our checks and balances system. This includes that the executive does not have to carry out an order that would clearly violate the constitution, because they also swear and oath to faithfully uphold the Constitution.
I was trying to get you to agree that in extreme situations, the executive could decline to carry out a clearly unconstitutional Supreme Court order, for example if a candidate won all 50 states but the Supreme Court still ruled the loser was the victor, without evidence.
If you agree that there are some scenarios where the executive can use it’s check against the judiciary (consistent with our checks and balances system), then it would follow that the more clear Trump’s election loss is, the harder it will be for the Supreme Court to steal the election. If they have the unfettered ability to steal the election no matter what, due to their unique role in being the final arbiter of the Constitution, then it doesn’t matter what the results are, the Supreme Court has the ability to steal it. I was arguing against that notion and I thought you were arguing for judicial supremacy that is unable to be checked by the executive branch, which would be inconsistent with our checks and balances system. I may have misunderstood your position but hopefully you understand mine more now.
I was assuming that the main goal is to keep Trump from getting back into power. If this is not your primary goal then I understand why you would not agree that we need to turn out in numbers to prevent Trump from retaking the White House.
Obviously policy goals are more important than the person who is in the White House, but the context of this post is the OP is speculating about a scenario where the Supreme Court declares Trump as the winner and I was just trying to explain that the Supreme Court is not above the other branches of government and all branches of government have the duty to interpret and faithfully execute their duties under the constitution. So it would have to be a close call election for the Supreme Court to get away with declaring the winner like they did in Bush v. Gore. The bigger risk is the fake electors schemes because those are more likely to succeed.
As long as we turn out in big enough numbers, we don’t realistically have to worry about the Supreme Court stealing the election. That’s my point.
“which is a circular argument” In the beginning the Supreme Court created the Supreme Court, and it was good.
‘Final arbiter of the law’ The authority of SCOTUS is laid out in Article III Section 2. The language is sweeping but not absolute. The only reference to the Constitution is "arising under this Constitution’. It does not explicitly say "interpret’ Almost like the founders understood the Constitution was a living document that would change. The power to declare something Un-Constitutional is a power the Court took for itself. It was never explicitly granted. Like where the Constitutions says people with guns have to part of a well regulated militia and that’s why everyone with a gun is regulated by a militia. /s/
How about when the Court decided the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” could be excised from the Constitution and it means exactly he same. What other phrases could be taken out of that document and have it’s meaning unchanged? That was clearly the beginning of their Judicial overreach.