this is mostly sarcasm
Haha do that with the filibuster as it stands, good luck
Thats banana republic stuff right there. Why not have Biden order the military to arrest all Justices and all Republican Congress People too?
what if no traffic violations
So a Constitutional amendment and adding a new branch to the courts is easier???
Adding members would require a 2/3rds majority
No it is not the easiest thing to change
I'm basically discussing changing things that congress really wants to change. This assumes there is no filibuster and that the house/senate/presidency all want to do something that the courts are somewhat blocking them from doing. Having all the house/senate/presidency is not particularly rare and there are things like restructuring the EC for example that we really want to get done but aren't so easy with the courts in the way. Of course nothing will happen if congress doesn't want to change things and thats really much of the issue at hand. Government can't even get robo call legislation modernized at this time because they just don't have the time/knowledge/interest in doing these sorts of things. Our government seems to work decently well in emergencies but otherwise sucks ass. Some of those things yes are a bit ridiculous and definitely banana republic (but honestly we're kinda already a stones throw away from that anyway if one or two more scotus members die during republican terms in the presidency).
Biden could declare martial law but of course you need to military to enforce it and they may not. Simply arresting the SCOTUS and congress is unlikely to work and the people won't stand for it. However, congress passing a law that add term limits is completely legal and its also completely legal for them to undo laws they passed. In fact there is discussion right now of limiting terms to 10 years which would kick out a number of current SCOTUS judges right now. They could easily pass a law that kicks out all the current scotus judges using a term limit of 1 year, appoint new ones, and then remove the law they used to kick out all the scotus judges 11 months later. The only cost is establishing a precedent and hurting public faith in the SCOTUS. They could also easily pass a law that limits who is eligible for SCOTUS positions (lets say traffic fines, but I'm being silly here. You could do something more like "must have gone to a public law school" or "must have served in the military" or "cannot make more than X amount of dollars annually" which would eliminate all the scotus judges right now) and that would be totally legal.
Having a court system that specifically has supreme jurisdiction over an area is within congress' power. Congress has the power to set the US federal court system as it sees fit and the SCOTUS is the top court in the federal court system. They also can tell the SCOTUS what's in its jurisdiction vs not. If you actually look at the US federal court system its made up of tons of little courts that have different jurisdictions which are congressionally appointed. Certain cases go to certain courts. The SCOTUS has generally been given jurisdiction over everything and anything they want to rule on but that's by convention. Congress can for example say the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over everything except abortion law or everything except constitutional law which instead goes to this little court over here for final say. Even if the SCOTUS decided to challenge that law, it'd get really messy because they'd be the plaintiffs and they'd probably also just lose the case because legally there is nothing in the constitution really supporting them. Remember the 3rd branch of government is the
entire federal court system, not the SCOTUS and the court system is setup by congress.
All I'm driving at is that we think of the SCOTUS as this stone like, rigid institution when the reality is that's mostly convention. There's actually very little in the constitution about the role of the SCOTUS and makeup and its largely just historical precedent that has gotten us where we are. The SCOTUS is quite malleable and the downside is mostly establishing the precedent of changing the SCOTUS for specific interests (if you do it, others will do it when they get a chance) and whatever public blowback you'll see from doing so.
www.msnbc.com
Facebook
Twitter