The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

When would be the first? I have very limited knowledge of US politics

hey same here but I read about it long ago it happened late 1800s or early 1900s the president refused to follow a Scotus ruling (which struck down a law passed by congress iirc) cant recall the details or the website though

the downside is that this results in a "constitutional crisis" but that's still a lot better than having an elitist Scotus no??

[Chaka-Z0]

Well it sure looks like it considering the way things are going right now. I think the worst is silencing Jim Acosta and revoking his license, first step into becoming a real dictator is silencing the voices against you. Jim has had a target on his forehead for a long time, they were just waiting for an excuse.

EDIT: Watch this for a side-by-side comparison of the Infowars version (Aka Sanders' video). Clip was clearly slowed down, who's the fake news now?

link

[Annoyed]

yea I know it's the supreme deep state but that doesn't answer the question (at all)

what if the executive refuses to enforce a Scotus decision?

First, you are continually misusing the term "Deep State".
SCOTUS is not the "Deep State". Deep State is the endless layers of bureaucrats that infest agencies, anonymously writing rules and regulations that the actual laws they are supposed to be administering do not give them the authority to do.

As far as a president defying a SCOTUS order goes, I would think that defying the lawful order of a court would be immediate grounds for impeachment.

[jelgate]

That doesn't matter at this point. Trump has already done a dozen things that is grounds for impeachment

[SoulReaver]

First, you are continually misusing the term "Deep State".
SCOTUS is not the "Deep State". Deep State is the endless layers of bureaucrats that infest agencies, anonymously writing rules and regulations that the actual laws they are supposed to be administering do not give them the authority to do.

correct the SCOTUS is more than a deep state that's why I said Supreme Deep State (SDS)

cause the bureaucrats you mention, at least, can be fired like most officials - however the members of SDS cannot be fired which makes it even more dangerous: unelected lifetime government officials who can (in effect) make their own laws that go far beyond the "rules & regulations" that the regular deep state makes

basically the SDS, not the media, is the greatest enemy of the people
but the american media & Dems are too stupid to understand & say it apparently (just like they're too stupid to understand & say that Charles KOCH is everything the neocons accuse Soros of being)

As far as a president defying a SCOTUS order goes, I would think that defying the lawful order of a court would be immediate grounds for impeachment.

lol big deal Trump's already done so many things that warrant impeachment he set the standards. so what if the next president (if there is one) does just 1 "bad" thing especially if it's for the people

but yeah a Senate of same alignment as the president would be recommended

and ideally (to give his defiance legitimacy) a popular referendum where the People would greenlight such a decision

[Chaka-Z0]

correct the SCOTUS is more than a deep state that's why I said Supreme Deep State (SDS)

cause the bureaucrats you mention, at least, can be fired like most officials - however the members of SDS cannot be fired which makes it even more dangerous: unelected lifetime government officials who can (in effect) make their own laws that go far beyond the "rules & regulations" that the regular deep state makes

basically the SDS, not the media, is the greatest enemy of the people

Not to mention the SCOTUS' impact /decision power is not even remotely comparable to the bureaucrats. That's like comparing a 302 to an Ori mothership.

At least in a parliamentary system the lifetime positions have no real decision power. Their job is just to put a stamp over the laws basically. The Senate is more of a candy job you give to your buddies or use it for political capital, so no Palpatine potential there.

[Chaka-Z0]

I should also mention that to my knowledge, Canada's Supreme court has never been biased, and usually they are made out of a mix of common law / civil code lawyers.

[Gatefan1976]

As far as a president defying a SCOTUS order goes, I would think that defying the lawful order of a court would be immediate grounds for impeachment.

Please, read something about the subject first.

[Annoyed]

basically the SDS, not the media, is the greatest enemy of the people
but the american media & Dems are too stupid to understand & say it apparently (just like they're too stupid to understand & say that Charles KOCH is everything the neocons accuse Soros of being)

Or, it can can be seen as the greatest protector of the people against abuse of government power.

[Gatefan1976]

Or, it can can be seen as the greatest protector of the people against abuse of government power.

Such as?

[SoulReaver]

Or, it can can be seen as the greatest protector of the people against enabler of abuse of government power.

fixed for current context

[Gatefan1976]

fixed for current context

Indeed.
The GOP is dying giving birth to the trump party, and stacking courts with trump party loyalists (not GOP, trump party)
It's the mummy's curse, striking from the grave.

[SoulReaver]

Such as?

a good SCOTUS can

like when it once ruled that death penalty should not apply to non-killing crimes
judge Anthony was the deciding vote he sided with the Dems

that's about the only thing that so far differentiates the US from other countries with capital punishment (which tend to be dictatorships) so this was a critical human rights topic

now that the SDS has turned conservative this could change

not GOP, trump party

nowadays it's the same (the Kavanaugh confirmation was the most recent proof)

must hand it to herr Drumpf he's as effective as Hitler in keeping his party in lockstep

[Annoyed]

Such as?

Just to cite one example, there are many others.

In Ruling on Cellphone Location Data, Supreme Court Makes Statement on Digital Privacy

WASHINGTON — In a major statement on privacy in the digital age, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government generally needs a warrant to collect troves of location data about the customers of cellphone companies.

“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

The 5-to-4 ruling will protect “deeply revealing” records associated with 400 million devices, the chief justice wrote. It did not matter, he wrote, that the records were in the hands of a third party. That aspect of the ruling was a significant break from earlier decisions.

The Constitution must take account of vast technological changes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, noting that digital data can provide a comprehensive, detailed — and intrusive — overview of private affairs that would have been impossible to imagine not long ago.

[Annoyed]

a good SCOTUS can

like when it once ruled that death penalty should not apply to non-killing crimes
judge Anthony was the deciding vote he sided with the Dems

that's about the only thing that so far differentiates the US from other countries with capital punishment (which tend to be dictatorships) so this was a critical human rights topic

now that the SDS has turned conservative this could change

nowadays it's the same (the Kavanaugh confirmation was the most recent proof)

must hand it to herr Drumpf he's as effective as Hitler in keeping his party in lockstep

So, you yourself admit that SCOTUS can protect citizen rights.

Regarding Kavanaugh and your comments regarding Trump. It should have come as no surprise to anyone that he would nominate Conservatives to the court. That's what he promised to do, remember?

The only problem with that is that the Democrats could not accept losing their favorite tool to advance their agenda. So, in the age of #MeToo, they found a few women to make false, unproven and unprovable accusations from 35 years ago in hopes that character assassination would do what they had no legal way to do, stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. That says nothing about the Republicans, but plenty about the Democrats, mainly that they act like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

Tell me something. In recent days, Justice Ginsburg has been in the news for failing health reasons. The Republicans still have the Senate, and Trump is still in the White House, with Pence waiting in case the House successfully impeaches Trump. It seems quite possible that Ginsburg will be forced to retire in the next two years.

What do you think the Democrats are going to do when Trump (Or Pence) nominates another Conservative to replace her, bringing the the court to a 6-3 Conservative majority?

Hint: If they were stomping around like spoiled children after Kavanaugh, that ain't nothin' compared to what they're gonna do if that happens. I don't care who Trump nominates, you mark my words. The Democrats will go absolutely ballistic.