Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BigmanPigman

(51,626 posts)
Wed Sep 30, 2020, 05:35 AM Sep 2020

The Supreme Court is too powerful and anti-democratic. Here's how we can scale back its influence.

University of Chicago professor Ryan Doerfler explains how to restrain “judicial review,” the Court’s power to strike down laws.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21451471/supreme-court-justice-constitution-ryan-doerfler

Two law professors, Ryan Doerfler of the University of Chicago and Samuel Moyn of Yale, recently released a paper laying out a way to “democratize” the Supreme Court by weakening its ability to strike down federal laws as unconstitutional (an ability usually referred to as “judicial review”). In order to pass transformative progressive legislation like Medicare-for-all or a Green New Deal and ensure the Court does not tamper with them, Doerfler and Moyn propose either stripping the Court of jurisdiction over certain legislation or imposing a supermajority requirement under which a 7-2 majority would be required for the Court to overturn acts of Congress.

When people use the term “judicial review,” usually what people are referring to is the judicial evaluation of either legislation or executive activity for conformity with the Constitution. Because the Constitution has legal priority over legislation and executive actions, courts in the US will decline to enforce either if the Constitution conflicts with them.

A whole lot of judicial activity is not judicial review, including, for example, review of executive actions for conformity with statutes when making regulations.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court is too powerful and anti-democratic. Here's how we can scale back its influence. (Original Post) BigmanPigman Sep 2020 OP
Thx for posting! Anyone who thinks we are powerless against a 6-3 court should read this Thekaspervote Sep 2020 #1
Lifetime appointments should require a supermajority dansolo Sep 2020 #2
Amy Conehead Barrett is the reason Biden declined to answer on packing the court. lagomorph777 Sep 2020 #3

Thekaspervote

(32,789 posts)
1. Thx for posting! Anyone who thinks we are powerless against a 6-3 court should read this
Wed Sep 30, 2020, 07:08 AM
Sep 2020

Bookmarking for a more detailed read

dansolo

(5,376 posts)
2. Lifetime appointments should require a supermajority
Wed Sep 30, 2020, 07:48 AM
Sep 2020

Mitch McConnell wouldn't have been able to play his games if all judges required at least 60 votes. That would have prevented the ability to push unqualified candidates with just a simple majority. He may have been able to block Obama nominees, but then he wouldn't have been able to fill the open slots either. With a 60 vote threshold, the really awful candidates wouldn't even want to be considered. I'd rather see half of the positions left open then to have someone like Barrett on the Supreme Court.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
3. Amy Conehead Barrett is the reason Biden declined to answer on packing the court.
Wed Sep 30, 2020, 09:54 AM
Sep 2020

Joe knows that packing will be necessary.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Supreme Court is too ...