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”?
Because the Supreme Court and it’s powers are defined in the Constitution itself, that’s not possible. They are the highest court in the country.
The modern Supreme Court has more power than was given to it by the Constitution. For example, their deciding the constitutionality of a law is not mentioned in the Constitution.
It was a big deal when the Supreme Court first did it. And they’ve been slowly giving themselves extra power making it more and more difficult to stop them.
the constitution is a piece of paper that endorses slavery. it’s not sacred. we’re not beholden to it.
I mean, if you get a page from Hobbes, you’ll note that you’re not beholden to The Constitution, but you are beholden to the People With The Big Army.
Similarly, Locke notes that governance is implicitly voluntary. It works because we choose to abide by it. But individual dissents acting erratically won’t undermine the system. You need an organized countervailing force.
You need a real organized opposition government that does have the consent of the governed. It can’t just be Sovereign Citizens spouting legal gibberish.
i dont think hobbes was all that hot shit tbh. don’t i remember his conclusion was effectively, '…and that’s why monarchy is the best form of government?" maybe some of the steps in his reasoning were flawed. for instance, the People With The Big Army changes pretty much every 4 years, or did do until relatively recently, and that peacefully. so maybe the People With The Big Army could be us, if we could only figure out how to reach into the minds of all those soldiers, and an effective message to plant. while it might seem farfetch’d, isn’t that exactly what social media is and does, just for the People-Who-Currently-Have-The-Big-Army?
i only read locke’s essay concerning, but my opinion is that individuals comprise any hypothetical organized countervailing force. what people need to join such movements- what I would like to see, perhaps I should just speak for myself- is other people taking the brave public first steps of actual resistance, and not merely voterocking and sloganeering.
i think we agree very much here.
That’s reductive and misses much of the thesis of The Elements of Law or Leviathan. Hobbes definitely extols the virtue of a strong central government, but he mentions it in contrast to the feuding princedoms common to 17th century Europe. He (not unreasonably) critiques the democratic governments of the ancient world by noting their penchant for demagoguery and civil wars along the same lines.
But the argument is around which countries can most efficiently formulate and implement national policy. This isn’t a moral critique so much as a Machiavellian practical analysis.
The President changes every 4-8 years. The bureaucracy in the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the State Department are more static. US foreign policy hasn’t radically changed since Truman. Presidents routinely run up against professional career bureaucrats who slow roll, undermine, and neglect policies they oppose. The military itself has its own political inertia in that regard, and it isn’t something you can easily sway unless you’re ready to jettison large chunks of your experienced labor force.
Military bases are absolutely awash in AM Talk Radio, right-wing TV, and QAnon internet. It isn’t unusual to see a Douglas MacArthur or a Michael Flynn retire from the service to get involved in politics and expose how absolutely unhinged the upper ranks of the US military can get. Also, we’re apparently putting CTOs from tech companies into the officers’ corps now.
I think this is a solved problem from the right. You basically buy your way in with your trillions of dollars in media cartels and contractor kickbacks.
Individuals have to act in concert. They need to collaborate, coordinate their actions, and provide support to one another. It isn’t enough for a million people to wake up one morning and say “We’re not going to take it anymore” without any understanding of who their peers are or what they’re doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
I don’t think I can seriously disagree with any of this.
okay, fine, but i- we- need a nexus of nucleation. i’m not seeing any evidence of such.
That’s the hard work of organization building.
I can say that lots of cities and universities have their own chapters of DSA. I try to be active in my own location (although its difficult to juggle fatherhood, a job, and volunteer work). But its still a very small group without a ton of money at its disposal.
Compared to TPUSA, which is hooked up to the firehose of reactionary billionaire wallets, its an uphill climb.
my experience with the local com.par. was that they were mostly interested in re-hashing the history of russia and selling books and t-shirts… i’ll check out dsa i suppose.
Political dorks love reading history. You’re not going to find an organization that’s devoid of them.
I’ll say that my Houston DSA is a lot more active in union organizing, candidate canvasing, and Palestine protest activism than some others. But if you’re allergic to the guy who wants to talk your ear off about the 1930s political scene… idk, man. It’s like moths to the flame. Left, right, and center - I’ve been through them all and everyone has their favorite stack of history books.
The Supreme Court very much defines how our laws work and we are beholden to it.
I strongly disagree.
Well, our entire legal system says otherwise.
I agree, your opinion is very popular.
edit: especially among professional lawyers…
Sorry, it’s not an opinion, it’s legal fact established by our founding documents.
It’s irrelevant how much people “like” it.
Don’t judges issue legal opinions? Don’t legal opinions constitute what makes up legal facts (ie not facts about a case, or facts about a person, but facts about what constitutes law)? Did not opinions about what ought to be the law determine what was actually written in the constitution? Hasn’t changing public opinion provoked changes in the constitution with time?
I agree, the popular appeal of a belief is not relevant to whether that belief is well-founded.
Trump and the Supreme Court have violated the constitution
You are absolutely allowed to criticize the highest court in the land what are you are you even trying to say here?
You can criticize, but that does absolutely nothing. The citizens have no power over the Supreme Court and you can’t ignore their rulings.