Is Sotomayor's position really that a would not apply to her & her fellow 8 Wizards in Robes? That seems not only like supreme chutzpah, but very dangerous, given that 6 of her colleagues will soon say exactly the same for the One Special Boy & the 22nd Amendment.
I Don’t Want to Belong to Any Club That Will Accept Me as a Member @chrislhayes.bsky.social
This viewpoint has some Wisconsin precedent. bsky.app/profile/wend...
Somehow I never thought to apply detrimental reliance to the Constitution
So in the end, they all just care about holding their power forever. This is why we can’t have nice things.
“I don't believe even with a constitutional amendment - because you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you've earned. because you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you've earned.” That requires an executive order ending with THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
She's saying the rule wouldn't apply retroactively.
👇👇🎯🎯 Perfectly good (& correct) to argue that it is unnecessary/impossible &/or bad politics to remove sitting justices in any SCOTUS reform. It’s the idea that a constitutional amendment itself would be & not apply to you personally that is incredibly chutzpahdik
I'm happy that the Court has left us with one remaining legal recourse for their own removal.
In addition to being incredibly chutzpahdik, this:
I imagine the slave owners would have liked that to be true.
Like most establishment dems she doesn’t care if the country becomes the fourth reich so long as she can keep her prestigious position What a sack of fertilizer
I would say, "not impossible in a democracy to have judicially-determined unamendable provisions", but my main example is India, so 🤷♂️ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_s...
Of course. One can easily imagine, in the US case, that a constitutional amendment abolishing SCOTUS would fit that logic. But it's laughable to argue that the "good behavior" clause is so all-powerful that it overrules all of Article V, just for individuals on SCOTUS, for reasons.
20th amendment shortened FDR’s first term by ~7 weeks by moving inauguration from March to January. It was ratified after he was elected - unconstitutional?
It seems the limit case here is that when the country no longer exists, likely due to their decision making, do they still "have a job for life"? We can argue these angels-on-pins, but what's the point?
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that she’s saying term limits would only be able to apply to justices appointed after such an amendment is ratified, which I’m still not really sure. Either way a very bizarre, short-sighted statement.
once again we have proof it doesn't matter who they are. once they get a whiff of uncontested power it's a high not even cocaine can rival.
This is all hand waving by the court …Breyer wrote many times that any court needs to worry about the Andrew Jackson problem…they have robes and the executive has actual kinetic power
Bad incentives can corrupt anyone.
Isn’t having a final boss interpreting the rule book the entire idea behind these wizards? If they can just ignore changes to that rule book it really puts a damper on things
Yeah, that’s *crazy.* The whole point of a constitutional amendment is that it can change any of the pre-existing rules. How can there possibly be any exceptions to that?