How would the other two branches of government check the recent over-reach of the Supreme Court, if they weren't utter right wing fascists?

@MistyCee good excuse! Nothing unless we find a third party.

@MistyCee An interesting article. Congress has the right to change the composition of the Court, and even to change their functioning. There would be nothing stopping Congress from passing legislation to change the function of the elder justices, say anyone who turns 70, into a Justice Emeritus, who retains their title and pay and lifetime appointment, and can work on some of the Court's grunt work, and act as advisors, but can no longer vote on cases. Applied to the current Court, this would place both Thomas and Alito in that category, resulting in 7 voting Justices. If there is concern about retaining 9 voting Justices, the President could appoint two new ones. Sotomayor will be the next to turn 70 in 2024, followed by Roberts in 2025.

@Roundandroundwego If a third party has the votes, great. But I'm not ready for an armed insurrection.

@windinhishair Nothing but the Court itself, though judicial review. If Congress had the votes to do it, but they're not there.

@MistyCee The votes are there now with the elimination of the filibuster. It is closer than most people think, and may be necessary to prevent permanent minority authoritarian rule against the will of the people.

@MistyCee We already have third parties, just not viable ones in the two party system that has been fostered. I’d love for example the libertarian party to moderate their positions and quit talking so much about legalizing weed as if that’s the only issue that even matters.

@windinhishair Where are the votes to get rid of the filibuster, though? Folks like Sinema and Manchin aren't exactly reliable,

@JustGoneNow No offense, but I'm not really sympathetic to stuff about third parties at the moment.

Maybe it's an idea whose time should have come, but the midterms are right around the corner, we've a got a radical, destabilizing Supreme Court , and it seems to me like there's more danger to the country in focusing on stuff like that than more pressing issues.

Also, I'm not sure how a "libertarian" party can moderate its views much and still be a libertarian party.

That last part is just an on observation. I like liberty, and think it's important, but at some point, one person's liberty and another's seem to inevitably conflict, and do you then switch to anarchy or limiting liberty and adopting some other philosophy?

@MistyCee Both came out against ending the fillabuster to codify Roe Vs Wade. They are both filling tjeir pockets with R lobbyists money.

@MistyCee of course there’s limits to individual liberty such as the limit to free speech as it relates to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The nuances to my position is much bigger conversation than what we are having here, but I always default to freedom which both of the current parties has lost sight of. I do agree that I have major issues with the opinions coming out of the courts right now as it relates to limiting of the unenumerated rights we have all been able to enjoy in regards to privacy, healthcare, access to contraceptives, gay marriage, and interracial marriage.

@JustGoneNow I get it, and only brought up libertarians because you mentioned them in the context of the third party issue.

I do get the issues with the two party system, but pushing a third party primarily on liberty at this point, seems pretty potentially destructive, when liberty for some of not for all is an issue for both parties. And if it's not destructive, at the very least, it doesn't seem to be a timely constructive issue to raise right now.

Don't get me wrong. I like the focus on issues like liberty that cut across both parties, but I think the more immediate solution is to work within the system as opposed to fighting it.

@MistyCee I can’t disagree with you. I’ve always been a centrist issues oriented moderate libertarian, but I never vote for them because they are not viable, so I’m stuck in the same two party dynamic as the vast majority. I’m honestly against who ever is determined to limit individual liberty and freedom the most and the Supreme Courts opinions of late have been very troubling. The correct argument is the child’s right to life, over the mother’s right to choice over her own body. That’s not what they did here when they argued it. What they did argue is that the unenumerated rights are not guaranteed unless explicitly stated under the constitution… or having a long tradition with our country. Remember this has technically been settled law for close to 50 years. This puts all unenumerated rights at risk of being forfeit, including the right to sexual contraception, the right to privacy, the right to medical care, the right to marry if gay, and the right for a black and white person to marry among other things. At what point does an unenumerated right become a long tradition? This makes things incredibly subjective to the whims of judges and how they feel. Also, this case at it’s bare bones was about the right to privacy and right to medical care… not about abortion. By issuing the opinions they way they did, they chip away at those rights. What happens when it becomes about forced vaccinations instead? This sets a very dangerous precedent, far beyond the abortion debate.

@MistyCee This honestly is good for nobody at the end of the day.

@JustGoneNow I hear you, but even worse than the Dobbs case, I think that Thomas' "pure originalist" decision in Bruen is more dangerous.

Justices have been fighting about substantive due process, unenumerated rights, penumbras, etc, but never before have we come up with such a pure "historical" approach that absolutely eliminates modern weighing on on the public welfare like what Thomas proposed in Bruen.

Add that to crippling the executive with the EPA decision, and daring a dysfunctional Congress to protect us, and I think the Dobbs thing is more just like another drop in the bucket.

@MistyCee I agree. Nullifying the EPA (a department created by congress) is the equivalent of canceling legislation in my opinion. A very, very dangerous precedent.