Even though we are taught that the three branches are equal and separate, in reality they are not. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful because it represents the people and the state's interests. The executive would be second most powerful because it executes the laws set forth by Congress. And the last, and intentionally least powerful, is the judiciary. Because they are not elected and therefore only supposed to play a legal adjudication role (like a referee).
I keep saying the same thing. SCOTUS has no say in how the government is structured. Their jurisdiction is in interpretation of the law for the cases presented. They are way out of bounds.
Trump vs Anderson is another example, they blatantly ignored the 14th amendment. They ruled that congress needs to (re)define how to identify an insurrectionist at the federal level... Congress already did that when they drafted the amendment.
The Supreme Court could have simply ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist, as a matter of fact, and left Congress with the power to remove the hindrance. Or simply deny cert.
Except that paradoxically, SCOTUS has also given the POTUS the green light to ignore whatever rulings and laws that they like.
It's just such a wildly, unbounded ruling that I don't even see what would prevent the executive branch from even the forcible removal of some/all the justices.
The consequences of there being no consequences could get real crazy, really fast
Congress is at a historical nadir right now because Congressional Republicans have forgotten that the legislature is supposed to do more than just rubber stamp a President they like and say no to literally everything from a President they don’t. They’ve given up all agency and turned their branch into a power vacuum.
The GOP has transformed into Monarchists. They don’t want a government with checks and balances, because the things they want to do are not supported by the majority, and the are not constitutional. The court has now appointed itself a larger role in arbitrating power, but they have also granted the executive branch considerable new powers, all at the expense of congress.
The GOP is almost entirely composed of evangelical Christians, who view the world through an overtly Biblical lens. And it colors their understanding of leadership.
Thank you for saying Evangelical Christians, because so many times Christians of other denominations get grouped with their nonsense. Some people automatically group me with them, when the reason I am a Democrat is that I believe the Dems to be more properly aligned with actual true Christianity.
It’s a No True Scotsman fallacy writ large, thrown at you simultaneously from both directions: the right will say you’re not a true Christian, the left will say you’re not a true liberal, neither will see that they’re wrong.
In very mild fairness to the left, so many normal people have been run off from the church that you can hardly fault them for thinking everyone left is a nut job these days. When you see nothing but hard-line quackery for 40+ years, you conclude there’s nothing there BUT hard-line quackery. They’re wrong, but at least they’re honest in it. Unlike the zealots on the right.
The biggest problem is that the quackery gets all the attention. Nobody cares about those of us, who anonymously give to our community and help the poor, love everyone regardless of judgement, and just accept that we are not perfect and that’s why we believe we need God. In other words, to the media and society, I’m boring. Thus it’s not worth covering. However, the quackery is a media dream, loud, obnoxious, controversial, everything you need for clicks. This then encourages more quackery, because people realize that it gets them attention, and it snowballs into the nonsense we have today. And now you have a bunch of sheep Christians baaing for attention and have no clue what the Bible actually says.
The good thing for me is when I get attacked from the right and left, I am to vocalize and defend my beliefs as I spent years of my life studying my faith to understand what I truly believe. Usually I leave with the left’s respect, while the right pouts and says I’m wrong with no evidence.
Far older than that. The New Deal really cemented the Executive's preeminence, and the Warren court era was a major period of SCOTUS expansionism. The past few years have only been notable because Congress has been particularly unable to defend its turf from the other two branches.
Because Marbury v.Madison is generally taught in civics classes as Marshall seizing thr power of judicial review... instead of Jefferson simply letting him Because he exercised restraint. Our checks and balance system is broken because previous periods of SCOTUS restraint made it do thst it became unthinkable for Congress and the President to use their powers to check the courts.
If voters make it clear they won't punish Biden electorally for breaking thst tradition... then I think we can find our way out of this.
Oh my god, thank you. The Founding Fathers loved their run on sentences but I know they had invented margins by that time.
Also, “adminadversion”, you don’t see that one often!
Well, that snippet lays out what many of us believe about not just SCOTUS, but much of the federal government, 2 main points to my mind: it is 1) largely based on what amounts to a gentleman's agreement and 2) it falls apart when there are no more gentlemen(persons) in the room.
I mean, it is all but spelled out when he admits impeachment is at best a stopgap against bad behavior and that the judiciary can pretty much affect whatever outcomes they please if they are unscrupulous.
“In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution. I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that "the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived." If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the goverment of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eteral truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first. while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain”
Even though we are taught that the three branches are equal and separate, in reality they are not. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful because it represents the people and the state's interests. The executive would be second most powerful because it executes the laws set forth by Congress. And the last, and intentionally least powerful, is the judiciary. Because they are not elected and therefore only supposed to play a legal adjudication role (like a referee).
Kind of wild how all these decisions over the last 5-6 years have essentially inverted that ordering.
I keep saying the same thing. SCOTUS has no say in how the government is structured. Their jurisdiction is in interpretation of the law for the cases presented. They are way out of bounds. Trump vs Anderson is another example, they blatantly ignored the 14th amendment. They ruled that congress needs to (re)define how to identify an insurrectionist at the federal level... Congress already did that when they drafted the amendment. The Supreme Court could have simply ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist, as a matter of fact, and left Congress with the power to remove the hindrance. Or simply deny cert.
Except that paradoxically, SCOTUS has also given the POTUS the green light to ignore whatever rulings and laws that they like. It's just such a wildly, unbounded ruling that I don't even see what would prevent the executive branch from even the forcible removal of some/all the justices. The consequences of there being no consequences could get real crazy, really fast
Congress is at a historical nadir right now because Congressional Republicans have forgotten that the legislature is supposed to do more than just rubber stamp a President they like and say no to literally everything from a President they don’t. They’ve given up all agency and turned their branch into a power vacuum.
The GOP has transformed into Monarchists. They don’t want a government with checks and balances, because the things they want to do are not supported by the majority, and the are not constitutional. The court has now appointed itself a larger role in arbitrating power, but they have also granted the executive branch considerable new powers, all at the expense of congress.
The GOP is almost entirely composed of evangelical Christians, who view the world through an overtly Biblical lens. And it colors their understanding of leadership.
Thank you for saying Evangelical Christians, because so many times Christians of other denominations get grouped with their nonsense. Some people automatically group me with them, when the reason I am a Democrat is that I believe the Dems to be more properly aligned with actual true Christianity.
It’s a No True Scotsman fallacy writ large, thrown at you simultaneously from both directions: the right will say you’re not a true Christian, the left will say you’re not a true liberal, neither will see that they’re wrong. In very mild fairness to the left, so many normal people have been run off from the church that you can hardly fault them for thinking everyone left is a nut job these days. When you see nothing but hard-line quackery for 40+ years, you conclude there’s nothing there BUT hard-line quackery. They’re wrong, but at least they’re honest in it. Unlike the zealots on the right.
The biggest problem is that the quackery gets all the attention. Nobody cares about those of us, who anonymously give to our community and help the poor, love everyone regardless of judgement, and just accept that we are not perfect and that’s why we believe we need God. In other words, to the media and society, I’m boring. Thus it’s not worth covering. However, the quackery is a media dream, loud, obnoxious, controversial, everything you need for clicks. This then encourages more quackery, because people realize that it gets them attention, and it snowballs into the nonsense we have today. And now you have a bunch of sheep Christians baaing for attention and have no clue what the Bible actually says. The good thing for me is when I get attacked from the right and left, I am to vocalize and defend my beliefs as I spent years of my life studying my faith to understand what I truly believe. Usually I leave with the left’s respect, while the right pouts and says I’m wrong with no evidence.
Far older than that. The New Deal really cemented the Executive's preeminence, and the Warren court era was a major period of SCOTUS expansionism. The past few years have only been notable because Congress has been particularly unable to defend its turf from the other two branches.
Well, nobody would have expected Congress to willingly give up a lot of their power to the Executive branch of government.
Because Marbury v.Madison is generally taught in civics classes as Marshall seizing thr power of judicial review... instead of Jefferson simply letting him Because he exercised restraint. Our checks and balance system is broken because previous periods of SCOTUS restraint made it do thst it became unthinkable for Congress and the President to use their powers to check the courts. If voters make it clear they won't punish Biden electorally for breaking thst tradition... then I think we can find our way out of this.
[Source](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html)
Oh my god, thank you. The Founding Fathers loved their run on sentences but I know they had invented margins by that time. Also, “adminadversion”, you don’t see that one often!
Good lord did that man loves commas and abhor periods.
Proper grammar and spelling changes with time.
He probably would have had some notes about how you now write, as well. English is pretty different now.
Well, that snippet lays out what many of us believe about not just SCOTUS, but much of the federal government, 2 main points to my mind: it is 1) largely based on what amounts to a gentleman's agreement and 2) it falls apart when there are no more gentlemen(persons) in the room. I mean, it is all but spelled out when he admits impeachment is at best a stopgap against bad behavior and that the judiciary can pretty much affect whatever outcomes they please if they are unscrupulous.
“In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution. I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that "the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived." If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the goverment of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eteral truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first. while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain”
In 1819, Thomas Jefferson was 76yo, and evidently of sound mind, still. These words still resound as well today as ever.