u/Irrelevant_Bookworm

Alito's announcement that he is considering retirement seems like a good time to discuss SCOTUS and its role in our society.

As I have mentioned before, I would consider myself to be a strict constructionist. That does not mean that I believe that the Constitution is perfect. It isn't and never was. There are many things that were theorized in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted that don't meet our needs in today's society. Some of them didn't work well in practice from Day 1. When I say that I am a strict constructionist, what I am saying is that change should happen from the parts of government that are responsible to the people. We have worked ourself into a place where the power to make the law comes from the power to appoint judges and not from Congress. Congress, in turn, has become a withered vestige organ within our government.

You might think that as a strict constructionist, I might like the current court. I don't. This SCOTUS is as activist as any period of the Warren Court and it does not seem to be bound to the law or Constitution. Those things are cited to fit their needs. Worse, there is a clear bias in their decisions.

Democrats have talked a lot about increasing the size of the Court to allow a (presumably Democrat) future president to appoint additional justices. I think that this just leans into the core problem. Not only will the GOP just expand the court again when they can the chance and soon we will end up with a court in the hundreds, but it cements the issue that the law is really all about the power of judicial appointment, which is unsustainable in a democracy. Limits on how long one can be a judge or mandatory retirement schemes that are intended to change the composition of the Court are just as problematic.

Knowing the if the Democrats retake Congress, they will need to do "something," I would suggest decreasing the size by 2. SCOTUS is like a committee. You don't make it more efficient by adding numbers. There is also historical precedence for reducing the size to prevent a president from making political appointments. Alito should not be replaced.

Another quick win if the Democrats take power in Congress would be to require all cases seeking national injunctions to be filed in the DC Circuit. This would cut down a lot on judge shopping. This falls into Congress' Article 3 power over jurisdiction, and (to a strict constructionist) should be able to be done by a joint resolution and not requiring the President's signature.

The more radical change that I would like to put on the table would be a Constitutional amendment to bring SCOTUS more effectively into the system of Checks and Balances. Between Congress and the President there are (or at least are supposed to be) a number of these checks to prevent abuse of power. SCOTUS has realized, at least since the 1930s, that there are effectively no checks on them other than court sizing and impeachment.

The proposal would be to give Congress, probably by 2/3 vote in each house similar to overriding a veto, the right to decertify SCOTUS decisions. Decertifying/Depublishing is a tool used in some states, usually by a state supreme court to lower courts, that takes a judicial opinion out of the public record and nullifies its precedential value. For instance, in Roe v. Wade, in the period immediately after the ruling, there was sufficient support in Congress that it probably would have been decertified and abortion placed back into the political sphere. It would have saved us 40 years of fighting over SCOTUS membership. Citizens United is another case that might have been decertified.

Several other democracies already have tools by which the legislative branch can assert authority over judicial decisions. This is not a radical concept. Congress is not equipped to hear cases and issue judicial type opinions, but it is (or is supposed to be) deeply concerned with what the law is on a subject. By effectively giving Congress a veto over SCOTUS decisions, we can give Congress back some actual authority.

That Trump sees himself in Messianic terms and leans into adoration that should be reserved for God is nothing new. At this point, I kind of just expect it of him and I will let God judge. God does not need me to be offended on His behalf.

The ad is not a political ad paid for by the Trump campaign. This is a "public service announcement" It is one of several similar ads that are being paid for out of the public treasury rather than campaign funds because why should he use his own money when he has the key to Fort Knox.

Yes, I know that this is just a drip in the $3 Billion / day increase in the federal deficit that this administration is running, but he has his own money. Stop spending ours--especially to blaspheme God in front of us.

In most U.S. elections (not necessarily true in many countries) this would be a hypothetical. I think, however, this is a real possibility in November in the United States. Enough of a possibility to talk about how Christians should respond before it happens, rather than after.

Democrats look at the current polls and, unless something major happens between now and November, believe that it is virtually impossible for them to lose the House and are becoming fairly confident in the Senate. Lots can happen between now and then, of course, but if the polling remains on track and large numbers of Democrats who are expected to win don't, it is likely that they will point to various voter suppression schemes and inclined to suspect large scale manipulation of voting machines.

Trump is unlikely to have his SAVE act in force and has never accepted the 2020 results. He points to polls indicating the continued popularity of his core political positions and has said that the polls showing his popularity is poor are politically motivated.

Whoever loses (or both) are likely to be motivating their teams to cast doubt on the election integrity--and the other side to support it.

This doesn't end on November 3. There are likely to be lawsuits, recounts, challenges to certification, state legislative hearings, potentially a lame duck Congressional session, and in early January when the new Congress is supposed to be seated quite possible floor fights over who gets the individual seats.

I think that all of the regulars here, including me, are opposed to political violence as a means of deciding. It is also clear that there will be those on both sides, especially as the rhetoric heats up that will be appealing to the 2nd Amendment--they already are.

As a forum that is relatively intelligent, dedicated to Christ, and diverse (but dedicated) in our political views, what can we do? Or do we just let it play out and hope for the best? Or "it is all in God's control and whatever happens (peaceful transition to judgement and bloody civil war) is His will?"