I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.

For what little I’ve gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn’t there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?

Why can’t a judge say “I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings”?

  • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well, that would be a constitutional crisis. And its what we’re heading for.

    The thing is, once a case goes to the SC, its pretty much written in stone until they themselves overturn it. The Executive branch is beholden to its rulings so what they say is how the law gets handled. So if a, say, district judge makes one ruling, and the SC overtures it, the SC has the Executive branch make sure its enforced.

    There aren’t really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.

    • brandon@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 day ago

      There aren’t really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.

      Well, they can hypothetically be impeached, but that’s unlikely to happen with the current Congress.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        They can be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for criminal misconduct as well. When you have a judge like Thomas openly accepting bribes to influence his vote from the bench, he’s in direct violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

        Our liberal DOJ didn’t want to touch this under Biden or Obama or Clinton, because it would have angered the press.

        But this was a political decision not a legal one.

        • billbasher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          We also have 2 justices that lied under oath. They said they wouldn’t touch precedent and were asked specifically about roe v wade and said they wouldn’t vote against it but they did. The supreme court is not valid in my opinion but what are we supposed to do about it?

      • ceenote@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Impeachment is unlikely with any congress. It’s just not a sufficient method of accountability.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      we’re heading for.

      It’s crazy to me that people are still saying we’re heading for it… Our Capitol was invaded by militaries from other states and they’re now invading Chicago. The crisis is over, the civil war has already begun.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        A constitutional crisis is a specific kind of thing, which has more to do with machinations of power rather than the fallout of those machinations.

        As yet there hasn’t been a strong constitutionally backed opposition to these actions, though I imagine they’re in the works, it’s probably not a “constitutional” crisis, just a more generic one.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yeah, who could see a constitutional crisis in an authoritarian wannabe despot is using military as police with no real pushback from the courts?

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Nice word salad there with no real meaning. You’re delusional if you don’t think the constitution is already in crisis.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Well, I guess when all you want is a good sound bite, you can call it whatever you want.

            Bad thing happen! Panic! Panic! Don’t think, just react!

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              You’re underplaying neighboring states sending their militaries to blue cities. They’re doing it in the name of reducing crime, but the military isn’t allowed to take police actions for US citizens.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, that would be a constitutional crisis.

      We’ve been using the phrase “constitutional crisis” to explain a relationship between the three branches that boils down to “The President can do what he wants” since at least Reagan.

      This isn’t a crisis. This is how the country has been governed for decades (if not centuries).

      There aren’t really any ways to remove SC justices in the law.

      The legal resolution to a broken court is to pack it with better judges and to prosecute corrupt officials as you find them.

      Liberals refuse to do this. Ffs, they can’t even be bothered to bottle up a SC nomination a month before election day.

      We have an outright fascist party and a controlled opposition. Until that changes, every well-meaning progressive is just taking another swing at Lucy’s football when they primary in another batch of Do Nothing Dems.

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 day ago

      SCOTUS can be impeached. Unclear who would run the trial if you’re impeaching Roberts though.

      Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all need to be though.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Only one Supreme Court justice has been impeached, and even then they weren’t removed from office. You would need to have a judge do horrific things to get removed from office.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The Executive branch is beholden to its rulings

      Though made significantly less potent by one such ruling that makes the president immune to punishment for any crime committed as an “official act”.

      Their rulings are effectively “No one but the president is able to do X, Y, Z” because the president can always just do something they know is illegal, wait months/years for the court to finally hear the case, get told to stop, and then basically just keep doing the same thing a different way until it gets challenged again, which becomes another months/years long process.