The major questions doctrine, explained.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This major questions doctrine, at least as it is understood by the Court’s current majority, emerged almost from thin air in the past several years. And it has been wielded almost exclusively by Republican-appointed justices to invalidate policies created by a Democratic administration. This doctrine is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Nor is it mentioned in any federal statute. It appears to have been completely made up by justices who want to wield outsize control over federal policy.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the scariest thing I’ve read. I hope we have a way to fix all this before the next election. Adding many, many justices is the first step.

    • delial@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The President could stop this at any time. All he needs to do is pack the court with more justices to rebalance it. Not doing so makes him complicit.

      Foot meet mouth. I’m an idiot.

      • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly how does the president do that? He cannot expand the court on his own. Congress doesn’t have enough Democrats to do it. None of the current justices are going anywhere unless they die.

        • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Everyone chip in to make sure all the conservative justices have free chicken and big macs at all times. While signing up the liberal justices for free gym memberships.

          Just pointing out there is a public mailing address for the supreme court that I’m sure would happily forward gift certificates, and a chik fil a almost within shouting distance. Don’t make them walk too far, it’d defeat the purpose.

          • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They made the case for removal twice against Trump. It did exactly nothing.

            Unless you have 67 senators willing to remove them, none of it matters. And right now, I have a better chance of getting blown by every one of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders in alphabetical order than getting 15 or so Republican senators to be willing to remove one of their own.

        • conquer4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or, charge several of them with taking bribes. As there is plenty of evidence already, they are not above the law.

          • Speff@melly.0x-ia.moe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The moronic general public already thinks holding 45 accountable is “political persecution” source. This is with rocksteady evidence. And now you people are talking about charging R-aligned Justices on loose bribe accusations? Just… no. This is how you fire up their base and hand R’s the election with a supermajority.

            This is the Congress’ job to fix. Want it fixed? Stop relying on the president and start figuring out how to make Congress actually work again.

            • reddwarf@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is how you fire up their base

              Not sure what more firing up the base needs in your opinion? That part of society is lost for quite a while now and if you think these morons could be ‘pulled back in’ as long as you do not insult/antagonize/etc. is a myth. A dangerous one at that. I would even wager that this attitude of soft gloves to not insult or fail to fairly accommodate the other side is what partially got us here.