Sweeping Bill Would Completely Overhaul Supreme Court as We Know It
newrepublic.com
Senator Ron Wyden has introduced the boldest proposal yet to reform the high court.

Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court’s shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Civil tongue, please.

      It seems to me that any disagreement as to who should be interpreting the constitution would be a “[Case], in Law and Equity, arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States…”

      Sections 1 and 2 do, indeed, empower someone to address such a case, such a disagreement: the “inferior courts” and the “Supreme court”.

      If you have no disagreement, you can let your HOA or the local parks and rec department interpret the constitution for you. It’s only when you have a disagreement that anyone cares who has that power, and in such cases, Section 2 says that SCOTUS has jurisdiction to rule on that case.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Ok, I am having great difficulty understanding what you’re talking about. Can you name a government entity, and describe a scenario in which that entity should be considered the appropriate party to interpret some part of the constitution?

          Barring that, can you demonstrate how they have overreached? A specific scenario, real or hypothetical, where SCOTUS claims, but should not have jurisdiction?

          Barring that, can you describe what exactly should be done to “hamper” their powers?

          Barring that, can you go back to Sections 1 and 2 and explain what they mean in your own words? I do not agree with the claims and conclusions of the anonymous author who wrote the essay you cited.

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            I do not agree with the claims and conclusions of the anonymous author who wrote the essay you cited.

            Frankly I don’t care about your opinion. I provided you with fully cited source from a reputable website. All you have done is stamp your feet. There is no value in continuing this discussion.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              Agreed.

              If you’re not going to answer any questions, or present any arguments, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to understand you.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Stop sea-lioning. You don’t get to just ignore what someone provides you and ask for more proof. Fuck off.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              I didn’t ask for more proof. I asked for some sort of explanation as to what they were talking about.

              My understanding comes from the “all cases arising under this constitution” clause. That strictly limits SCOTUS powers. Where the president decides the constitution makes a claim, that claim is assumed true unless there is a significant disagreement. That disagreement is what Article III refers to as a “case”. Unless such a “case” arises against the president’s interpretation, the president’s interpretation is valid. Unless such a “case” arises against the FCC’s interpretation, the FCC’s interpretation is valid.

              Where I disagree with the FCC’s interpretation, or Congress disagrees with the President’s, a “case” exists, and SCOTUS (and the inferior courts) are constitutionally empowered to resolve that “case”.

              If that isn’t what they, or you, are talking about, my request for further information isn’t “sea lioning”, but a request to provide an explanation similar to what I have provided above. Show me the flaw in my understanding.