For what little I’ve gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn’t there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?

Wait, what? Can you explain a bit more? Like what laws are you looking at, and are they less than 200 years old?

At least in practice, the Supreme Court is as strong as any other American institution. Which, to be fair, is saying less and less, but the faction with all the initiative right now is not the one against racial profiling.

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? - John Adams

The US government is built around trying to put off dealing with the impossibility of a “democracy” swarming with slaves and incredibly rich aristocrats, so it needs unelected people whose job is to say no when people try to vote against the aristocrats. There might be liberals who don’t like the racial profiling, but that’s the price they pay to have a secretive council of lords who make it illegal for you to vote to make landlords illegal.

Yeah, it’s just a farce now. There is no merit to their decisions. They are not passing laws, but political judgements.

Why can’t a judge say “I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings”?

The constitution clearly says they can’t, so if their notion of the law is claiming to be based in the constitution such a declaration would be obviously bullshit. If their notion of the law is not based on the constitution, that’s an attempt to dissolve our government.

LOL no.

They could but that would mean effort and sacrifice… so they won’t until it affects them directly and personally because “fuck you, got mine… why would I bother to help anyone other than myself?!”

The problem is the difficulty is intentional.

Part of the system of checks and balances is the Supreme Court is appointed for life so should be above the constant swing of politics or popular opinion.

In theory even today’s right wing court is ok (after four years) because they will remain regardless of what party is in power or clown is in the White House. It’ll be interesting to see what they do when politics swing back to sanity, however a non-fascist party resident won’t stretch the legal boundaries so maybe is irrelevant.

Given that positions on the court open up rarely and years apart, it generally stays relatively balanced. However this time around a combination of bad timing and political maneuvering made today’s court more partisan than ever. Violating the norm of requiring that they be competent means they no longer follow existing law or legal precepts

They’re part of the totally optional “checks and balances” we’ve depended on for 250 years or so. The Founders never thought the solution would become part of the problem, so there’s a limited number of options available. Impeachment is one, but the other part of the checks and balances is Congress, which has also become part of the problem.

Depending on voluntary compliance was a noble idea in the 1700s, but it should have been codified in the federal regulations.

The problem is that separation of powers is broken as trump has been able to capture the legislative and judicial branches at least such that they will not challenge him. So checks and balances are currently out the window. You have a good point that the only check left at this point is state vs federal but it is a very dangerous situation as essentially it brings us very close to a civil war situation. The next election will be crucial to the survival of the american system. Without a massive change to allow for a reboot of the system its likely to crash.

Because for some reason we are still following the leadership of the establishment Democrats and that is anathema to them.

They were chosen to be weak, to play good cop to Republican bad cop, to not change back anything Republicans have done let alone improve things and threaten the privilege the rich have chiseled from us all.

The right wing has been doing that very thing with campaigns against activist judges for decades and it has been relatively successful along with stacking the courts with Federalist Society hacks chosen decide with the party over country, specifically to change the country old dynamic in the US where it does it did not matter what party nominated what judge, they would in their lifetime appointments represent the people and their interests not that party.

They probably have career ending blackmail that would force these guys to resign If released on top of choosing them to be hacks.

Without new leadership doing anything politically is a complete waste at best and often exposes you to the party machine in power for persecution while receiving no protection from dems.

Like voting officials in 2020. How are we still fighting under the edtablishment dems’ banner?

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *

By definition, anything the SCOTUS rules is constitional. Typically, in the US, until a law defines or forbids something, it’s legal.

In cases like Roe v. Wade, there not a direct or clear law that says “abortion is legal.” It was a right to privacy that Roe leaned on, that a woman’s decision to get an abortion or not was covered as a privacy issue. Which is not an altogether permanent ruling over a longer time frame and a change in justices and a mee case can change how the law is interpreted. The more permanent version would be a constitutional amendment that would be harder to undo, doesnt rely on the SCOTUS to interpret nuance, and is the result of a push by the American people to change a law.

Ultimately, the way to nullify a SCOTUS ruling is to make a more clear law that says “no, actually, we want this.”

The fact that Obama didn’t fill the position that Scalia opened when he died is probably one of the biggest missed opportunities in America’s recent history. Had his position been filled with a left-leaning Justice, especially a young one with many decades of life left, much of America’s Fascist changes could have been opposed.

As it is, the SC has become a rubber stamp for whatever the current Fascist/Authoritarianist regime wants.

Hahahaha

Geez, man, read a book. Or even a Wikipedia page

You’re advocating rule by mob over rule of law… You know, like the French Revolution

Within the confines of the Constitution, no.

If we realize en masse that this system is broken and there is no internal fix for it, then yes.