• GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s nothing that says it can’t be done. But I’m sure SCOTUS will have something to say should a case make it to them.

    Constitutional amendment would be the best way. Not sure if it would be easier via Congress or State Legislatures given the implosion on Capitol Hill.

    • Captain Aggravated
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can completely imagine the SCOTUS, especially the current SCOTUS, taking any law passed by the legislature and saying “Yeah that’s unconstitutional” with the power to destroy all laws they unilaterally granted themselves.

      • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure that the only check on SCOTUS has always been “just trust them, bro”.

        Frankly it reflects very poorly on the public debate that there hasn’t been any major debates about actually doing something about that for almost 250 years, grumbling about specific decisions not really counting…

        • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, the Constitution says, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” in Article 3 and in Article 1 “The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

          It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There has been debate on this actually. I can’t find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can’t exactly recall.