Politics

10180 readers

182 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kalanggam@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

JuBe@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

JCPhoenix@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Joe Biden issues Supreme Court warning (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 5 months ago by WaterLizard@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Joe Biden has suggested he will appoint progressive justices to the Supreme Court if he wins a second term in the White House in November.

"The next president, they're going to be able to appoint a couple of justices... Look, if in fact we're able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we've always had, tell me that won't change your life," he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] senseamidmadness@beehaw.org 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The Supreme Court idea of judicial review was, essentially, created by an early Chief Justice using the classic children's excuse "the rules don't say I can't do this so therefore I'm doing it and you can't stop me"

Edit: I had this somewhat wrong. After reading, it seems a lot of the people who wrote and debated on the Constitution wrote strongly in support of judicial review, and it was in fact voted on and approved by multiple state legislatures after the Constitution was adopted. It simply wasn't worded explicitly into the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall did issue an official ruling that made it a standard practice but it was not a new concept.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 5 months ago

I do think that the idea of judicial review itself makes sense. After all, what's the point of a constitution if the legislature can just makes laws that go directly against it? The problem, in my view, is that the constitution covers too many things, and does so in far too unspecific terms, which makes for an incredibly broad range of possible political interpretations.