Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court’s shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Stop sea-lioning. You don’t get to just ignore what someone provides you and ask for more proof. Fuck off.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I didn’t ask for more proof. I asked for some sort of explanation as to what they were talking about.

      My understanding comes from the “all cases arising under this constitution” clause. That strictly limits SCOTUS powers. Where the president decides the constitution makes a claim, that claim is assumed true unless there is a significant disagreement. That disagreement is what Article III refers to as a “case”. Unless such a “case” arises against the president’s interpretation, the president’s interpretation is valid. Unless such a “case” arises against the FCC’s interpretation, the FCC’s interpretation is valid.

      Where I disagree with the FCC’s interpretation, or Congress disagrees with the President’s, a “case” exists, and SCOTUS (and the inferior courts) are constitutionally empowered to resolve that “case”.

      If that isn’t what they, or you, are talking about, my request for further information isn’t “sea lioning”, but a request to provide an explanation similar to what I have provided above. Show me the flaw in my understanding.