What actual power to implement a decision does the court have?

[sober_teacher]

What's the process for impeaching a supreme court justice? Do we need to start petitions? What is the role of "we the people" in being a check and balance on federal court justices?

It’s the same process as impeaching anyone else genius.

 

[KFsdisciple]

you know you can actually look this up, right?

there are easy to access answers for these questions.

you don't have to just pretend you're the victim of judicial tyranny because president trump doesn't get to do anything and everything he wants to do

I could look it up... I just figured one of our constitutional scholars on the board might just know off the top of their heads.

 

[jneffer]

I could look it up... I just figured one of our constitutional scholars on the board might just know off the top of their heads.

but you've asked this repeatedly.

this has been your thing for a while now...acting like the concept of judicial review is somehow unfair or antithetical to our constitution

when in reality, it is part of the foundational 3 branches of government that our constitution set up...and you don't have to be a "constitutional scholar" to know that

 

[KFsdisciple]

It’s the same process as impeaching anyone else genius.

Only Congress has the power to impeach and remove federal judges from office. In recent years, similar calls to remove judges for purely political reasons have come at the state level, and there are different processes that vary by state.

 

[KFsdisciple]

but you've asked this repeatedly.

this has been your thing for a while now...acting like the concept of judicial review is somehow unfair or antithetical to our constitution

when in reality, it is part of the foundational 3 branches of government that our constitution set up...and you don't have to be a "constitutional scholar" to know that

You have the right to ignore me, just not the ability it seems. if you don't want to answer my questions fine. I can save my time not reading your useless responses.

 

[sober_teacher]

Only Congress has the power to impeach and remove federal judges from office. In recent years, similar calls to remove judges for purely political reasons have come at the state level, and there are different processes that vary by state.

Gosh, it’s almost like state governments have a different set of rules from the federal government.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

I heard one talking head describe the expanding executive powers of the past decade as this...

Beginning with the Obama admin and continuing through Biden, Democrats built a giant rake and then stepped on it.

Now, after 4 years to think about what he'd do differently, Trump is using the powers intended to advance the liberal agenda (including USDS, now DOGE) to advance his own.

Reality is the executive branch has been given too much power, and while Republicans repeatedly spoke up and said "hey guys just so you know, when the pendulum swings back this might not be as you intend..." Here we are. If I were Rs, I'd do everything possible to advance Trump's agenda, then push to take back the powers of the executive branch before he leaves office.

you can't point to anything in US history that resembles our president today and "too much power".
NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN EVER acted the way this president is. No person in power has ever had trumps narcissism and lack of self control. No president has embraced our enemies and gone after our allies. No president has put the sheer number of people in charge of agencies with no real qualifications to run them. This presidency is a mixture of kim jun un, putin, and hitler rolled into one ugly modern version of a leader.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

What's the process for impeaching a supreme court justice? Do we need to start petitions? What is the role of "we the people" in being a check and balance on federal court justices?

Your ire lies with Congress. They have the power to remove judges. But of course Congress has abdicated their job. Now the GOP just go on TV to hawk whatever latest insanity Trump dreams up. And the libs go on TV to decry it. That seems to be the full extent of their capabilities these days. None of them actually do anything to assert their responsibilities outlined in the constitution.

If you don’t like it, vote out your rep and senator. Simple as that. Hell, Grassley chairs the judiciary committee. Seems like that might be a good place for you to start.

 

[sober_teacher]

you can't point to anything in US history that resembles our president today and "too much power".
NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN EVER acted the way this president is. No person in power has ever had trumps narcissism and lack of self control. No president has embraced our enemies and gone after our allies. No president has put the sheer number of people in charge of agencies with no real qualifications to run them. This presidency is a mixture of kim jun un, putin, and hitler rolled into one ugly modern version of a leader.

Hell, even Nixon didn’t think of this shit.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

The nation's lack of forward thinking and imagination isn't Trump's fault.

Nothing is, amirite?

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

Whatever dude? That's it? Is that just an admission that I'm right?

No, it’s admission I don’t want to argue with you over an institution that has worked for 250 years and you want to change because Fat Orange wants to be a dictator.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Your ire lies with Congress. They have the power to remove judges. But of course Congress has abdicated their job. Now the GOP just go on TV to hawk whatever latest insanity Trump dreams up. And the libs go on TV to decry it. That seems to be the full extent of their capabilities these days. None of them actually do anything to assert their responsibilities outlined in the constitution.

If you don’t like it, vote out your rep and senator. Simple as that. Hell, Grassley chairs the judiciary committee. Seems like that might be a good place for you to start.

It would be if I was under the jurisdiction of Grassley. But my Senator is Rick Scott.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

but you've asked this repeatedly.

this has been your thing for a while now...acting like the concept of judicial review is somehow unfair or antithetical to our constitution

when in reality, it is part of the foundational 3 branches of government that our constitution set up...and you don't have to be a "constitutional scholar" to know that

No shit. This is high school level stuff

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

It would be if I was under the jurisdiction of Grassley. But my Senator is Rick Scott.

Ah. Sorry figured you lived in Iowa. Well, point stands, Congress has the power to remove judges via impeachment.

 

[KFsdisciple]

No, it’s admission I don’t want to argue with you over an institution that has worked for 250 years and you want to change because Fat Orange wants to be a dictator.

I don't care who is power, yes Trump brought this to a head, but we were always destined to arrive here.

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't care who is power, yes Trump brought this to a head, but we were always destined to arrive here.

No, we weren’t.

No one has ever put the strain on the norms and traditions in addition to the constitution that we’ve relied on to this point.

 

[jneffer]

No, we weren’t.

No one has ever put the strain on the norms and traditions in addition to the constitution that we’ve relied on to this point.

our constitution set up a system of government that provides checks and balances

it was inevitable that there would be friction between the different branches because of that

what was not inevitable was that legislative branch would decide to just not be interested in their role, and join with the executive branch (and its supporters) to actively undermine and attempt to erode the equality of the judicial branch

 

[joelbc1]

I agree with you 100%. Since we don’t elect judges like we do the others, who holds the judges accountable to we the people? This is the issue for me, if we don’t like what the president is doing we have multiple remedies including impeachment or moving on after 4 years. No such remedies seem to exist for judges and they’ve kind of figured it out, that they have final word and aren’t accountable to we the people.

Federal judges are appointed “for life” so they can (theoretically) focus on “the law” and not be unduly swayed/influenced by “the soup of the day” issues and emotions that so oh influence politicians and “we the people”. In theory (of the FF), judges are the gatekeepers for keeping America between the guard rails as set forth by the Constitution. The Courts and judges are the beacon masters for this Republic of ours.

 

[joelbc1]

I agree with you 100%. Since we don’t elect judges like we do the others, who holds the judges accountable to we the people? This is the issue for me, if we don’t like what the president is doing we have multiple remedies including impeachment or moving on after 4 years. No such remedies seem to exist for judges and they’ve kind of figured it out, that they have final word and aren’t accountable to we the people.

Again…(theoretically) they are accountable to only the Constitution…by definition. The President and the Congress are accountable to “we the people.”

 

[Gus is dead]

our constitution set up a system of government that provides checks and balances

it was inevitable that there would be friction between the different branches because of that

what was not inevitable was that legislative branch would decide to just not be interested in their role, and join with the executive branch (and its supporters) to actively undermine and attempt to erode the equality of the judicial branch

Thats funny stuff right there. If you dont think that the judiciary as moved into following their own internal political leanings you havent been paying attention.

What we have now are lifetime political appointments for judges with agendas. Boith sides.

Do I think this is a bad thing? I am not sure. I guess I'd lean no. It is nearly impossible for any of us to put aside our political leanings these days and I don't think judges are any different. In fact, as some judges have become more politically motivated it empowers more to lean into their own political leanings.

lastly, judicial philosophy tends to parallel politics. So even if one says they aren't making decisions on the basis of politics, their philosophy that guides their decisions often follows the philosophy of one of the parties moreso than another.

Living breathing document types vs strict constructionists for example.

 

[jneffer]

Thats funny stuff right there. If you dont think that the judiciary as moved into following their own internal political leanings you havent been paying attention.

What we have now are lifetime political appointments for judges with agendas. Boith sides.

Do I think this is a bad thing? I am not sure. I guess I'd lean no. It is nearly impossible for any of us to put aside our political leanings these days and I don't think judges are any different. In fact, as some judges have become more politically motivated it empowers more to lean into their own political leanings.

lastly, judicial philosophy tends to parallel politics. So even if one says they aren't making decisions on the basis of politics, their philosophy that guides their decisions often follows the philosophy of one of the parties moreso than another.

Living breathing document types vs strict constructionists for example.

i'm not sure what you think i'm saying

of course judges have biases...and that's what appeals and impeachments processes are for. judges are subject to the same checks and balances as the other 2 branches.

the judges don't rule with an iron fist over the entire government, even if trump supporters want to pretend they do

i think i just find these arguments particularly frustrating coming from people who have spent the past decade borderline dry humping the constitution and the founding fathers, only to turn around and argue that the basic structure of the document is bad or ineffective

 

[pablow]

you can't point to anything in US history that resembles our president today and "too much power".
NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN EVER acted the way this president is. No person in power has ever had trumps narcissism and lack of self control. No president has embraced our enemies and gone after our allies. No president has put the sheer number of people in charge of agencies with no real qualifications to run them. This presidency is a mixture of kim jun un, putin, and hitler rolled into one ugly modern version of a leader.

Harry Truman took us to war in Korean without Congressional authorization as specifically required by the Constitution. Over 36,000 US soldiers died.

Since 1942, the last time Congress passed a declaration of war, nearly every President has followed Truman's precedent resulting in over 100,000 citizens dying in wars without the approval required by the Constitution. President Johnson deployed 550,000 troops to fight in Vietnam. I guess that wasn't a war.

 

[KFsdisciple]

i'm not sure what you think i'm saying

of course judges have biases...and that's what appeals and impeachments processes are for. judges are subject to the same checks and balances as the other 2 branches.

the judges don't rule with an iron fist over the entire government, even if trump supporters want to pretend they do

i think i just find these arguments particularly frustrating coming from people who have spent the past decade borderline dry humping the constitution and the founding fathers, only to turn around and argue that the basic structure of the document is bad or ineffective

The document is fine, it's the judges and their opinions who suck. The supreme court VERY often makes decisions along party lines, and then tries to craft their argument within the framework of the constitution, but they're not fooling anyone.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Thats funny stuff right there. If you dont think that the judiciary as moved into following their own internal political leanings you havent been paying attention.

What we have now are lifetime political appointments for judges with agendas. Boith sides.

Do I think this is a bad thing? I am not sure. I guess I'd lean no. It is nearly impossible for any of us to put aside our political leanings these days and I don't think judges are any different. In fact, as some judges have become more politically motivated it empowers more to lean into their own political leanings.

lastly, judicial philosophy tends to parallel politics. So even if one says they aren't making decisions on the basis of politics, their philosophy that guides their decisions often follows the philosophy of one of the parties moreso than another.

Living breathing document types vs strict constructionists for example.

this is hilarious.... There are checks and balances.... Even to the judiciary.

 

[Gus is dead]

i think i just find these arguments particularly frustrating coming from people who have spent the past decade borderline dry humping the constitution and the founding fathers, only to turn around and argue that the basic structure of the document is bad or ineffective

I am not arguing that. I am simply saying that both judicial philosophies have political ties/parallels.

Given that, I believe this opens them up to criticism.

I believed your point to be that judges, while an equal branch of government, shouldn't be questioned about their decisions or their possible conflicts.

These Democrat federal district judges can be criticized just as right leaning SCOTUS justices. We can question why they make decisions and what their motives may be. If that wasn't your point, then maybe you need to clarify.

But this idea that these judges' decisions can't be questioned because they are lifetime appointments in a co-equal branch and have the final say, particularly at the district level is silly. Otherwise, they are not co-equal, they are the final arbiter.

My personal thoughts.... I think that these judges should NOT be able to place a nationwide injunction on Presidential executive actions that IMO are clearly within the role of a co-equal branch's mandate and constitutionally defined powers.

 

[KFsdisciple]

I am not arguing that. I am simply saying that both judicial philosophies have political ties/parallels.

Given that, I believe this opens them up to criticism.

I believed your point to be that judge, while an equal branch of government, shouldn't be questioned about their decisions or their possible conflicts.

These Democrat federal district judges can be criticized just as right leaning SCOTUS justices. We can question why they make decisions and what their motives may be. If that wasn't your point, then maybe you need to clarify.

But this idea that these judges' decisions can't be questioned because they are lifetime appointments in a co-equal branch and have the final say, particularly at the district level is silly. Otherwise, they are not co-equal, they are the final arbiter.

My personal thoughts.... I think that these judges should NOT be able to place a nationwide injunction on Presidential executive actions that IMO are clearly within the role of a co-equal branches mandate and constitutionally defined powers.

Very few times I agree with 100% of someone's post. This is one of those times. Well said.

 

[jneffer]

I am not arguing that. I am simply saying that both judicial philosophies have political ties/parallels.

Given that, I believe this opens them up to criticism.

I believed your point to be that judge, while an equal branch of government, shouldn't be questioned about their decisions or their possible conflicts.

These Democrat federal district judges can be criticized just as right leaning SCOTUS justices. We can question why they make decisions and what their motives may be. If that wasn't your point, then maybe you need to clarify.

But this idea that these judges' decisions can't be questioned because they are lifetime appointments in a co-equal branch and have the final say, particularly at the district level is silly. Otherwise, they are not co-equal, they are the final arbiter.

My personal thoughts.... I think that these judges should NOT be able to place a nationwide injunction on Presidential executive actions that IMO are clearly within the role of a co-equal branches mandate and constitutionally defined powers.

no one is saying judges decisions can't be questioned or criticized

that's entirely different than openly calling for the impeachment or removal of multiple judges that have ruled against trump (as trump admin officials have done) or portraying judges as despotic autocrats that have rendered the president completely powerless (as many commenters, like KF, have done)

there is a system for questioning or challenging judges' decisions...and that's being actively undermined by current trump admin/supporters

 

[Gus is dead]

no one is saying judges decisions can't be questioned or criticized

that's entirely different than openly calling for the impeachment or removal of multiple judges that have ruled against trump (as trump admin officials have done) or portraying judges as despotic autocrats that have rendered the president completely powerless (as many commenters, like KF, have done)

there is a system for questioning or challenging judges' decisions...and that's being actively undermined by current trump admin/supporters

I disagree. I don't think that they should be impeached personally but I do think that calling for them to be isn't crazy. They are handing down far reaching decisions that seem to be politically motivated from a court that I don't believe has jurisdiction over these matters.

They are trying, aggressively and actively, to usurp presidential powers by attorneys working for the Democrat party. Forum shopping to get their results. Why else order the Venezuelan's back? How else could this be interpreted otherwise?

I mean as one example, tomorrow we have a Wisconsin SC election that many on the left are cheering for so they can get their choice in so as to redistrict the state to improve their election odds even while looking at a map that clearly is not gerrymandered. It is a state that has clear urban and rural districts. And surprise! they don't vote the same. Well, let's get a judge in that can get the districts redrawn to make it possible for more Democrat congresspeople to be elected.

I'm simply trying to be consistent.

I believe that all judges have biases.
Democrat and Republican operatives know this.
As such judicial decisions, from both sides, can be questioned and criticized.

You appear to be one that would be upset about your side's judges being questioned but are likely also one that would have been upset about the SCOTUS decision in Casey.

 

[jneffer]

I disagree. I don't think that they should be impeached personally but I do think that calling for them to be isn't crazy. They are handing down far reaching decisions that seem to be politically motivated from a court that I don't believe has jurisdiction over these matters.

They are trying, aggressively and actively, to usurp presidential powers by attorneys working for the Democrat party. Forum shopping to get their results. Why else order the Venezuelan's back? How else could this be interpreted otherwise?

I mean as one example, tomorrow we have a Wisconsin SC election that many on the left are cheering for so they can get their choice in so as to redistrict the state to improve their election odds even while looking at a map that clearly is not gerrymandered. It is a state that has clear urban and rural districts. And surprise! they don't vote the same. Well, let's get a judge in that can get the districts redrawn to make it possible for more Democrat congresspeople to be elected.

I'm simply trying to be consistent.

I believe that all judges have biases.
Democrat and Republican operatives know this.
As such judicial decisions, from both sides, can be questioned and criticized.

You appear to be one that would be upset about your side's judges being questioned but are likely also one that would have been upset about the SCOTUS decision in Casey.

i guess we just disagree...on where these objections to the judges come from

because i don't think the comments we see here (from dudes like KF and PF) about corrupt judges or their unchecked power comes from their objection on the merits of the decision...those same commenters also ask basic questions about how decisions are appealed or judges are impeached that anyone with enough knowledge to have an opinion based on merits would not need to ask

i've stated repeatedly that i know judges - all judges - have their own opinions and biases. judge shopping has plenty of examples both ways that shows this in abundance. but the answer is to appeal their decisions, not dare the judge to enforce the action or directly challenge their authority to make the decision...i think we agree here

 

[sober_teacher]

I disagree. I don't think that they should be impeached personally but I do think that calling for them to be isn't crazy. They are handing down far reaching decisions that seem to be politically motivated from a court that I don't believe has jurisdiction over these matters.

They are trying, aggressively and actively, to usurp presidential powers by attorneys working for the Democrat party. Forum shopping to get their results. Why else order the Venezuelan's back? How else could this be interpreted otherwise?

I mean as one example, tomorrow we have a Wisconsin SC election that many on the left are cheering for so they can get their choice in so as to redistrict the state to improve their election odds even while looking at a map that clearly is not gerrymandered. It is a state that has clear urban and rural districts. And surprise! they don't vote the same. Well, let's get a judge in that can get the districts redrawn to make it possible for more Democrat congresspeople to be elected.

I'm simply trying to be consistent.

I believe that all judges have biases.
Democrat and Republican operatives know this.
As such judicial decisions, from both sides, can be questioned and criticized.

You appear to be one that would be upset about your side's judges being questioned but are likely also one that would have been upset about the SCOTUS decision in Casey.

Where were your complaints when it’s a democratic president whose executive orders they block?

 

[Gus is dead]

Where were your complaints when it’s a democratic president whose executive orders they block?

The only time I can recall commenting on this, or having an opinion, was as it related to the loan forgiveness issue and the OSHA COVID vaccine mandate.

In both cases I was against these orders and the SCOTUS ruled against both. So, I agreed with their decision.

I have no issue with the process. I believe it is exploited by partisans and ultimately believe it is up to SCOTUS to be the final answer for now and congress to make law to address the judicial concerns about the existing process in the decision they hand down.

So in the case of the loan forgiveness, I believed this order was extraconstitutional. SCOTUS agreed. I cheered it. Now if Congress or the American people dont agree the remedy for the dissatisfaction with any SCOTUS ruling is to make law that directly answers the question SCOTUS cited. Pass a law forgiving the student loans. Then the President can pass or veto.

I believe in the process. But this does not make one bound to agreeing with all XO's or lower court decisions. Heck even agreeing with SCOTUS ones. But again, Congress can address this head on if they wish to do so.

I like my SCOTUS justices, the one's that lean my way. I like it when they rule as I would. I like it that the court leans right. Does that answer all your questions?

 

[desihawk]

For the lawyers and folks who stayed at a Holiday Inn...

The court makes a decision, produce paperwork with directives, and then what? Doesn't the executive branch do the work? If the executive branch just ignores the directive, then what? What actual power to make physical changes does the judicial actually have? To tell them again in a more stern voice?


If this has been asked / discussed, pepsi away. (and provide a link)

not a lawyer but as a citizen i need a smooth reliable operating society with rule of law where a contract means something and this requires that judgments be enforced. you only have to look around the world at the places where judiciary is toothless to see people with a poor qol. at the same time judiciary has to be untarnished as well. setting up one branch against another is the worst.

 

[sober_teacher]

The only time I can recall commenting on this, or having an opinion, was as it related to the loan forgiveness issue and the OSHA COVID vaccine mandate.

In both cases I was against these orders and the SCOTUS ruled against both. So, I agreed with their decision.

I have no issue with the process. I believe it is exploited by partisans and ultimately believe it is up to SCOTUS to be the final answer for now and congress to make law to address the judicial concerns about the existing process in the decision they hand down.

So in the case of the loan forgiveness, I believed this order was extraconstitutional. SCOTUS agreed. I cheered it. Now if Congress or the American people dont agree the remedy for the dissatisfaction with any SCOTUS ruling is to make law that directly answers the question SCOTUS cited. Pass a law forgiving the student loans. Then the President can pass or veto.

I believe in the process. But this does not make one bound to agreeing with all XO's or lower court decisions. Heck even agreeing with SCOTUS ones. But again, Congress can address this head on if they wish to do so.

I like my SCOTUS justices, the one's that lean my way. I like it when they rule as I would. I like it that the court leans right. Does that answer all your questions?

Fair enough. Disagreeing with a decision doesn’t an impeachable offense make however, and that’s where a lot of republicans are right now.

 

[thewop]

you can't point to anything in US history that resembles our president today and "too much power".
NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN EVER acted the way this president is. No person in power has ever had trumps narcissism and lack of self control. No president has embraced our enemies and gone after our allies. No president has put the sheer number of people in charge of agencies with no real qualifications to run them. This presidency is a mixture of kim jun un, putin, and hitler rolled into one ugly modern version of a leader.

Well that was a level headed take...

OR maybe when Obama and Biden used the authority to push through liberal policies you just didn't mind, and the media never spent any time on it.

Trump is doing great so far with what he's been given, and has done well not to make the mistakes he made in his first term which resulted in getting a lot less done than he could have. That's my opinion of course, but I'm right.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I heard one talking head describe the expanding executive powers of the past decade as this...

Beginning with the Obama admin and continuing through Biden, Democrats built a giant rake and then stepped on it.

Now, after 4 years to think about what he'd do differently, Trump is using the powers intended to advance the liberal agenda (including USDS, now DOGE) to advance his own.

Reality is the executive branch has been given too much power, and while Republicans repeatedly spoke up and said "hey guys just so you know, when the pendulum swings back this might not be as you intend..." Here we are. If I were Rs, I'd do everything possible to advance Trump's agenda, then push to take back the powers of the executive branch before he leaves office.

How very convenient.

I'd disregard whatever source you told you as much before you forget how to find your own mouth.

 

[grayhair81]

Andrew Jackson one of the earliest Democrats just ignored the Supreme Court and nothing happened.

"Mr. Marshall has his decision, now let him enforce it".
Jackson thought he was above any law or constraint on his power. At least he served admirably before he was POTUS.

 

[grayhair81]

I'm to the point that I might start buying weapons and bullets. I think maga is going to drag us into a civil war.

Sadly, I had the same thought this weekend. The three term thing is my breaking point

 

[grayhair81]

you can't point to anything in US history that resembles our president today and "too much power".
NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN EVER acted the way this president is. No person in power has ever had trumps narcissism and lack of self control. No president has embraced our enemies and gone after our allies. No president has put the sheer number of people in charge of agencies with no real qualifications to run them. This presidency is a mixture of kim jun un, putin, and hitler rolled into one ugly modern version of a leader.

Andrew Jackson was close on several of those topics

 

[Kelsers]

Well that was a level headed take...

OR maybe when Obama and Biden used the authority to push through liberal policies you just didn't mind, and the media never spent any time on it.

Trump is doing great so far with what he's been given, and has done well not to make the mistakes he made in his first term which resulted in getting a lot less done than he could have. That's my opinion of course, but I'm right.

What policies are you talking about?

 

[joelbc1]

"Mr. Marshall has his decision, now let him enforce it".
Jackson thought he was above any law or constraint on his power. At least he served admirably before he was POTUS.

He also hated the idea of the National Bank system…which will always be a point of credit for him! He knew what thieves bankers are!