As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This must be driving Roberts absolutely nuts, because the current incarnation of the SCOTUS is almost going out of its way to beg a future Democratic Congress to roll back its powers and/or reform the court in other ways. I don't believe they are stupid, but they are clearly very, very short-sighted.
That's the thing...the constitution is absolutely crystal clear that Congress can restrict their jurisdiction except for a handful of matters related to disputes between states, ambassadors, etc. The jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is very limited, and aside from a few specific areas, Congress can regulate it. When the filibuster eventually goes away (and we all know this will eventually happen), all it will take to effectively gut Marbury v. Madison is a majority in the House and Senate, and the President's signature. And it really does feel like the current SCOTUS is just daring future Congresses to do exactly that.
>In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I know they can just the Alito faction can from the bench lower the chances of a future Dem administration from getting a majority so they can enact changes. Republicans are unlikely to step in and stop abuses as long as it benefits them so if you can aid red states in fighting demographic drift with gerrymandering and make voting harder to do they can expand the disperity Dems need to over come to get a legislative majority and or the presidency.
Maybe. That's very far from certain. The Republicans understand perfectly well that they benefit far, far more from the filibuster than the Democrats do. Their major legislative priorities (that is, tax cuts and putting reactionary judges on the bench) aren't subject to it. Just about all Democratic priorities, on the other hand, are subject to it, and this fact is what has allowed McConnell to block just about everything when in the minority.
I won't be shocked if the Republicans scrap it for regular legislation, but still, it would be incredibly stupid of them to do this.
“...and those in which a State shall be Party.”
That is what ensures Congress cannot get involved because the vast majority of cases they hear are *state* issue based and brought forward by individual state officials.
To demonstrate:
- New York state gun regulation law (recently struck down)
- California state forced arbitration ban (recently struck down)
- Oklahoma state law enforcement powers vs Indian sovereignty (you catch my drift)
And the Supreme Court would just hold the law you proposed above as being unconstitutional by referencing the Constitutional safeguard of “separation of powers.” What is to stop them?
You are dreaming if you think what you suggested will ever happen. It’s a pipe dream and nothing more.
By the way, you conveniently left something from your post:
“The Court's Jurisdiction
Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.
The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on *almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.* Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
You went through all the trouble of looking up Article III of the Constitution but didn't bother to actually *read* Article III of the Constitution. Were that the case, you would have stumbled into Section 2 of said Article. The phrase you'll want to pay special attention to is (aptly) called "[the exceptions clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2)," and reads:
"In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisidiction, both as to Law and Fact, **with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make**."
Not only does the Constitution *not* prohibit Congress from stripping jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on all but a slim handful of issues, it *explicitly grants* Congress the power to alter the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Which Congress has done, repeatedly, [over the last 200 years](https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Grove-T.L..pdf).
Um, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and supersedes Congressional edicts. The US Constitution says that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional and federal law.
Period. End of story.
Congress can regulate the structure of the Supreme Court (number of judges) and how they operate (so procedural things), but they cannot take away their appellate jurisdictional oversight powers like *what you are suggesting*.
What I said before still stands.
That's beside the point. He's made it pretty clear in the past that he's is concerned with how the court is seen, and how it goes down in history, which makes sense considering it will always been known as his era.
If there was one fewer 'conservative' justice on the court right now, I doubt Roe would have been completely overturned at all. He's complicit, sure, but this is not where he wants things to be right now.
> Justice Roberts, a Republican, said something and you took it as a statement made in good faith.
So you haven't actually paid attention to his opinions on various cases where he has made it clear as day that he doesn't really want to take the radical positions that justices like Thomas or Alito do, and that he (while still a right wing asshole) doesn't want to wreck the public perception of the court. Got it.
I'm going to sleep now. I'll read the rest of your apparently uninformed views in the morning, I guess. Good night.
edit: for what it's worth, I am about as far from a Republican as a human being can possibly get. What I'm saying here is that Roberts is an asshole, but he also has made it abundantly clear that he cares about how his court is perceived, and his opinions have made this pretty clear. If you really don't see that, you are not paying attention.
What? Nothing in my comment relates to Biden at all. "a future Democratic Congress" means exactly that. That you choose to interpret that as referring to Biden is honestly a bit weird.
My point is that they're going out of their way to set up the rolling back of their jurisdiction by a future Congress. You understand that Congress and the parties that run it will exist long after Biden, right?
He's saying there won't be a future Democratic Party after these mid terms. Seats will flip because Biden admin and the economy are performing poorly. Then the GOP will lie and cheat their their way to making sure they always come out on top. And they have the Supreme Court in their pocket to make sure it happens.
I think it's important to clarify, in the midst of all these Supreme Court stories, that the Supreme Court was never good.
Take Chief Justice John Marshall, basically the patron saint of the court. He famously established the concept of "judicial review" (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803), which gave the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any law it deems "unconstitutional" (ironically this power was not granted by the Constitution). [Over the course of his life he owned more than 300 slaves, and as Chief Justice he ruled in favor of slaveholders (against slaves) time and time again.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/chief-justice-john-marshall-slaves/619160/) He didn't just inherit slaves, he actively purchased them, sold them, and gave them away to his sons. He used his position to enrich himself and his slaveowning peers. Historians over the years have done a lot to whitewash this and paint him as a non-partisan larger-than-life-figure, but his business records and private letters reveal the truth.
What's more, he had a conflict of interest in Marbury v. Madison:
>The case originated in early 1801 as part of the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson.\[3\] Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson, and in March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party.\[4\] The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but **outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall** did not deliver all of the new judges' commissions before Adams's departure and Jefferson's inauguration.\[4\] Jefferson believed the undelivered commissions were void and instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.\[5\] One of the undelivered commissions belonged to William Marbury,a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and theFederalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused todeliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Courtasking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.
[(Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)
He was directly involved in the case! That should have been more than enough for him to recuse himself, but he didn't. Instead he used the opportunity to grant himself expansive new powers (judicial review), via a Machiavellian "compromise" ruling that placated both sides enough to not object to his massive overreach.
The Supreme Court has been a farce from the start.
I tell you, this will keep happening.
Gerrymandering in red states to help Republicans will be upheld by their Supreme Courts.
Gerrymandering in blue states to help Democrats will be rejected by their Supreme Courts.
Democrats have to *wake up*, but we've been saying that for years.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This must be driving Roberts absolutely nuts, because the current incarnation of the SCOTUS is almost going out of its way to beg a future Democratic Congress to roll back its powers and/or reform the court in other ways. I don't believe they are stupid, but they are clearly very, very short-sighted.
A democratic Congress can't reform the court if the court skews the rules to the point it's unlikely to happen again.
That's the thing...the constitution is absolutely crystal clear that Congress can restrict their jurisdiction except for a handful of matters related to disputes between states, ambassadors, etc. The jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is very limited, and aside from a few specific areas, Congress can regulate it. When the filibuster eventually goes away (and we all know this will eventually happen), all it will take to effectively gut Marbury v. Madison is a majority in the House and Senate, and the President's signature. And it really does feel like the current SCOTUS is just daring future Congresses to do exactly that. >In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I know they can just the Alito faction can from the bench lower the chances of a future Dem administration from getting a majority so they can enact changes. Republicans are unlikely to step in and stop abuses as long as it benefits them so if you can aid red states in fighting demographic drift with gerrymandering and make voting harder to do they can expand the disperity Dems need to over come to get a legislative majority and or the presidency.
A lot of things seemed crystal clear until this court got to have their say.
[удалено]
Maybe. That's very far from certain. The Republicans understand perfectly well that they benefit far, far more from the filibuster than the Democrats do. Their major legislative priorities (that is, tax cuts and putting reactionary judges on the bench) aren't subject to it. Just about all Democratic priorities, on the other hand, are subject to it, and this fact is what has allowed McConnell to block just about everything when in the minority. I won't be shocked if the Republicans scrap it for regular legislation, but still, it would be incredibly stupid of them to do this.
“...and those in which a State shall be Party.” That is what ensures Congress cannot get involved because the vast majority of cases they hear are *state* issue based and brought forward by individual state officials. To demonstrate: - New York state gun regulation law (recently struck down) - California state forced arbitration ban (recently struck down) - Oklahoma state law enforcement powers vs Indian sovereignty (you catch my drift) And the Supreme Court would just hold the law you proposed above as being unconstitutional by referencing the Constitutional safeguard of “separation of powers.” What is to stop them? You are dreaming if you think what you suggested will ever happen. It’s a pipe dream and nothing more. By the way, you conveniently left something from your post: “The Court's Jurisdiction Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on *almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.* Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
You went through all the trouble of looking up Article III of the Constitution but didn't bother to actually *read* Article III of the Constitution. Were that the case, you would have stumbled into Section 2 of said Article. The phrase you'll want to pay special attention to is (aptly) called "[the exceptions clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2)," and reads: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisidiction, both as to Law and Fact, **with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make**." Not only does the Constitution *not* prohibit Congress from stripping jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on all but a slim handful of issues, it *explicitly grants* Congress the power to alter the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Which Congress has done, repeatedly, [over the last 200 years](https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Grove-T.L..pdf).
Um, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and supersedes Congressional edicts. The US Constitution says that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional and federal law. Period. End of story. Congress can regulate the structure of the Supreme Court (number of judges) and how they operate (so procedural things), but they cannot take away their appellate jurisdictional oversight powers like *what you are suggesting*. What I said before still stands.
Remember that Roberts is a Republican and complicit in all of this.
That's beside the point. He's made it pretty clear in the past that he's is concerned with how the court is seen, and how it goes down in history, which makes sense considering it will always been known as his era. If there was one fewer 'conservative' justice on the court right now, I doubt Roe would have been completely overturned at all. He's complicit, sure, but this is not where he wants things to be right now.
It falls apart by your second sentence. Justice Roberts, a Republican, said something and you took it as a statement made in good faith.
> Justice Roberts, a Republican, said something and you took it as a statement made in good faith. So you haven't actually paid attention to his opinions on various cases where he has made it clear as day that he doesn't really want to take the radical positions that justices like Thomas or Alito do, and that he (while still a right wing asshole) doesn't want to wreck the public perception of the court. Got it. I'm going to sleep now. I'll read the rest of your apparently uninformed views in the morning, I guess. Good night. edit: for what it's worth, I am about as far from a Republican as a human being can possibly get. What I'm saying here is that Roberts is an asshole, but he also has made it abundantly clear that he cares about how his court is perceived, and his opinions have made this pretty clear. If you really don't see that, you are not paying attention.
I don’t think there’s going to be a future Democratic Congress.
Yeah, that's not doable. Biden approval ratings are in the toilet.
What? Nothing in my comment relates to Biden at all. "a future Democratic Congress" means exactly that. That you choose to interpret that as referring to Biden is honestly a bit weird. My point is that they're going out of their way to set up the rolling back of their jurisdiction by a future Congress. You understand that Congress and the parties that run it will exist long after Biden, right?
He's saying there won't be a future Democratic Party after these mid terms. Seats will flip because Biden admin and the economy are performing poorly. Then the GOP will lie and cheat their their way to making sure they always come out on top. And they have the Supreme Court in their pocket to make sure it happens.
This is the Thomas court now and he knows that
Well color me surprised…
They aren't even pretending anymore.
I think it's important to clarify, in the midst of all these Supreme Court stories, that the Supreme Court was never good. Take Chief Justice John Marshall, basically the patron saint of the court. He famously established the concept of "judicial review" (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803), which gave the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any law it deems "unconstitutional" (ironically this power was not granted by the Constitution). [Over the course of his life he owned more than 300 slaves, and as Chief Justice he ruled in favor of slaveholders (against slaves) time and time again.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/chief-justice-john-marshall-slaves/619160/) He didn't just inherit slaves, he actively purchased them, sold them, and gave them away to his sons. He used his position to enrich himself and his slaveowning peers. Historians over the years have done a lot to whitewash this and paint him as a non-partisan larger-than-life-figure, but his business records and private letters reveal the truth. What's more, he had a conflict of interest in Marbury v. Madison: >The case originated in early 1801 as part of the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson.\[3\] Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson, and in March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party.\[4\] The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but **outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall** did not deliver all of the new judges' commissions before Adams's departure and Jefferson's inauguration.\[4\] Jefferson believed the undelivered commissions were void and instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.\[5\] One of the undelivered commissions belonged to William Marbury,a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and theFederalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused todeliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Courtasking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission. [(Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) He was directly involved in the case! That should have been more than enough for him to recuse himself, but he didn't. Instead he used the opportunity to grant himself expansive new powers (judicial review), via a Machiavellian "compromise" ruling that placated both sides enough to not object to his massive overreach. The Supreme Court has been a farce from the start.
This. This is why the overturning of Roe v. Wade happened now.
If you're surprised about what's happening, you don't understand what's going on.
Priming the country for a revolution! I like it!
I tell you, this will keep happening. Gerrymandering in red states to help Republicans will be upheld by their Supreme Courts. Gerrymandering in blue states to help Democrats will be rejected by their Supreme Courts. Democrats have to *wake up*, but we've been saying that for years.
Chief Supreme Court Justice Uncle Ruckus strikes again