• SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    If SCOTUS attempts to change the constitution, without the required support of congress, then it gives the ok for the American people to remove them.

    Technically they haven’t done anything illegal yet

    • WraithGear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.

      • SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          It would not be against this text alone to create a 2-tier citizenship depending on whether you are born to US citizens. Since the US federal government is not a state, they can deprive the “not born to US citizens”-tier of their privileges, immunities etc.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          They literally can. I don’t know if you’re just ignorant, but the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide what it “really” means. If they decide that the 14th only applies to people exclusively under US jurisdiction (like they’ve indicated is the plan) then that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter how shitty or blatantly wrong their argument is. It only matters what they decide, and whatever they decide becomes de jure fact. There’s no legal method to counter it.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In theory a twelve gauge and a dream.

        In practice a civil war which would kill millions and most likely dissolution or heavily decentralize the federal government.

        • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Which clause? I’m not remembering any that covers removal of a justice and I’m not finding it, unless you’re considering this from article 3 section 1 to be what you said: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… I’m not seeing any mechanism enforcing that “good behavior”, any definition of it, or who would enforce it

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          If you’re holding out hope that Congress would impeach and remove any Supreme Court Justice, let alone all the ones who need removing, I have a bridge to sell you.