General Discussion

unblock

(55,380 posts)

5. Congress can actually do considerably more to rein in the Supreme Court

Thu Jul 10, 2025, 12:23 PM

Thursday

Article III, section 2 includes:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I don't know what's been tried in the past, but sounds to me like congress could severely constrain what the Supreme Court can and can't do by making exception and regulations that prevent them easily overturning inferior court decisions or even hearing certain types of cases at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

MustBeTheBooz orangecrush

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Balancing the Supreme Court with a new Chief Justice. [View all] kentuck Thursday OP

I kinda feel like a deal was made Calista241 Thursday #1

They can get whatever they want without the filibuster. kentuck Thursday #3

Get rid of it but also know that the Senate favors Republicans newdeal2 Thursday #6

I'm willing to take that chance. I want them to live and die by all the policies they claim to like In It to Win It Thursday #18

No, they can't SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #9

And with the filibuster, Democrats can do nothing about it.. kentuck Thursday #17

We'll agree to disagree n/t SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #23

Wait, what? moose65 Thursday #27

I'm saying that has there been no filibuster available SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #38

False Fiendish Thingy Thursday #31

It was only a reconciliation bill SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #40

We can agree to agree Fiendish Thingy Thursday #49

Do it with a populist gusto. kentuck Thursday #50

Precisely Fiendish Thingy Thursday #61

Oddly . . . Scubamatt Thursday #62

You noticed? kentuck Thursday #74

They did remove it for the tax cuts dsc Thursday #8

No, that was still reconciliation. Calista241 Thursday #12

It was but it violated the clear rules of reconcilliation dsc Thursday #14

Right! kentuck Thursday #19

The Senate has to vote to change the rules, and no such vote was taken. Calista241 Thursday #20

Do you a cite for that? dsc Thursday #72

The American Rescue Plan added 2.2 trillion to the deficit EdmondDantes_ Friday #104

That isn't chasing the baseline dsc Friday #106

We cannot use fear of what republicans might do to justify inaction Fiendish Thingy Thursday #32

Yeah something happened Bev54 Thursday #41

And exactly when could they have "balanced out the court" even if they got rid of the filibuster? Wiz Imp Thursday #51

With the majority, you can do away with the filibuster with a simple rule passed by Rules Committee. kentuck Thursday #52

Um, the President doesn't just appoint justices. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. Wiz Imp Thursday #56

True. kentuck Thursday #75

They had 50 senators it was the lack of will by Bev54 Thursday #83

It wasn't the lack of will. Wiz Imp Thursday #87

I understand all of that but what I failed to see was the will of the Bev54 Thursday #91

How do you know they didn't try to change minds? Wiz Imp Thursday #94

The first 2 years the Dems had the house and the senate Bev54 Thursday #82

There's a HUGE difference between lacking the will to do something Wiz Imp Thursday #88

It wasn't a mistake by the Democratic Party. Wiz Imp Thursday #66

I don't disagree but perhaps if they pushed harder to bring those Bev54 Thursday #85

Even if I ignore all the current Senators and agree they could possibly be convinced to support court expansion Wiz Imp Thursday #93

Justice Kagan would be a great Chief Justice musette_sf Thursday #2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken... GiqueCee Thursday #55

It is not who they side with, it is following the law. Bev54 Thursday #86

and Sotomayor andJackson don't... GiqueCee Thursday #89

Of course they do but they are not all monolithic thinkers. Bev54 Thursday #90

I am in total agreement... GiqueCee Thursday #98

You can't change the Chief Justice, that's fantasy Polybius Thursday #4

But he can be impeached. kentuck Thursday #7

He won't be for that Polybius Thursday #10

Yeah, the Citizens United was a real winner, also. kentuck Thursday #13

By "slippery slope" I just meant if impeach a Justice for a ruling we don't agree with it would be unprecedented Polybius Thursday #24

I believe we had 60-vote majority when Joe Lieberman was a Senator? kentuck Thursday #33

Impeachment of justices is a fantasy that needs to be abandon. Calista241 Thursday #16

Impeachment and conviction are two different stories. kentuck Thursday #21

But you can change the rules on his authority Fiendish Thingy Thursday #34

Actually, you could Mountainguy Thursday #37

Isn't that what happened when Roberts was named Chief Justice? kentuck Thursday #39

The "Chief Justice" is not simply a member of the Court... appmanga Thursday #81

Which, again Mountainguy Thursday #97

Congress can actually do considerably more to rein in the Supreme Court unblock Thursday #5

You forgot the caveat Polybius Thursday #11

Congress can vote to change the law, right? kentuck Thursday #15

Sure Polybius Thursday #25

Nope Fiendish Thingy Thursday #30

See my last reply Polybius Thursday #59

Only if we elect a congress committed to doing so Fiendish Thingy Thursday #64

If not, we may have no other choice but to just wait, since Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas are old Polybius Thursday #65

The first post on this particular sidebar ITAL Thursday #67

AFAIK the constitution is mute on the role of the chief Justice. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #69

Which would seemingly to lead us to Jackson's apocryphal challenge to Marshall. tritsofme Thursday #22

Well, if we're ignoring the constitution, all bets are off. unblock Thursday #26

The constitution can be interpreted Polybius Thursday #57

Congress can't make up powers for themselves, sure unblock Thursday #70

Nope Fiendish Thingy Thursday #29

We weren't talking about just expanding, I know that's fine Polybius Thursday #58

The powers the SCOTUS claims were only established via Marbury vs Madison Fiendish Thingy Thursday #63

Two questions that should be a litmus test for any Dem senate candidate: Fiendish Thingy Thursday #28

I agree that expanding the Court is the only way to undo the damage by Trump and Robert's Court. kentuck Thursday #35

Well, there are lots of other ideas Fiendish Thingy Thursday #45

Ketanji Brown Jackson for Chief!!!! elleng Thursday #36

Like their patron saint The Wizard Thursday #42

Republicans CAN NOT block a Democratic President from appointing a Supreme Court Justice as long as the Wiz Imp Thursday #54

13th Justice gfarber Thursday #43

Nice rhyme. kentuck Thursday #44

Best thing is to get rid of it Nasruddin Thursday #46

We need to get rid of the debt limit. markodochartaigh Thursday #47

Expand the court! We have to! LymphocyteLover Thursday #48

Perhaps it is unfortunate...? kentuck Thursday #53

I believe Chief Justice is an administrative role. LeftInTX Thursday #60

Now is not the time to be talking about expanding SCOTUS Shrek Thursday #68

Same thing for killing the filibuster FBaggins Thursday #71

It doesn't matter if they pass a new ruling by a 6-3 vote or a 9-3 vote. kentuck Thursday #77

Maybe not now Shrek Thursday #79

It seems like ForgedCrank Thursday #73

I think we've had time to "remember yesterday"... kentuck Thursday #78

If we change the rules to add SC justices, then nothing is stopping Republicans from doing the same. pcdb Thursday #92

what would the Repubs like to do that they haven't already done? kentuck Thursday #95

Suggest arrest of 6 of 9 Kid Berwyn Thursday #76

Arrest them for what? Shrek Thursday #80

Great! Maybe we can use our imagination? Kid Berwyn Thursday #84

Label them ForgedCrank Thursday #96

Trump is tossing citizens in prison without due process... Kid Berwyn Friday #99

Those things ForgedCrank Sunday #115

OK, and then TnDem Friday #100

I do not think that is a legitimate concern. kentuck Friday #101

Yes it would TnDem Friday #102

That would be true if there was no political price to pay. kentuck Friday #103

Now on rocket fuel TnDem Friday #105

We will have to disagree on this one. kentuck Friday #107

History TnDem Friday #108

We have that Court right now. kentuck Friday #109

No we don't TnDem Friday #110

No.It would not. kentuck Friday #111

OK, what do the voters have to do with it TnDem Friday #112

Unless the voters lose their right to vote... kentuck Friday #113

Maybe so...but remember TnDem Friday #114