The Marbury Doctrine that the Supreme Court derived from its 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison has no Constitutional grounding: the Court simply usurped the power of legislative review for themselves. The Congress either made the decision that the Supreme Court could be trusted with this power, or they lacked the self-confidence to object. This absence of action established the tradition of accepting the Marbury "Doctrine" despite the Court's frequent failure over the years to live up to the trust that Congress acquiesced in giving them.
Two things cry out for finally making a change: 1. Trump demonstrated the frailty of Implicit traditions in the instance of someone unprincipled enough to ignore them; and 2. the Roberts Supreme Court, with its record of Consistently outrageous decisions, has arguably earned the title of worst in American history, wresting that disgraceful title from the Taney Court for its particularly outrageous decision regarding Dred Scott.
Consequently, if Democrats gain control of the federal government in the November election, they should also break implicit tradition and modify the 1803 Marbury Usurpation: legislate a mechanism that any Supreme Court decision affecting federal legislation will activate an automatic Congressional review--an opportunity, if they choose, to adjust the legislation to accommodate the Court decision or, with simple majority votes in both Houses, reject the Court decision in whole or in part. They should also establish a retrospective process to examine, for modification or reversal, past Court decisions (such as Citizens United, Dobbs, Heller, the Chevron revocation, or Trump v. United States). With these modifications the Supreme Court would still be allowed to offer a perspective on Congressional legislation, but not one that overrides the majority of both Houses. (Practically speaking, Congress would likely need to abolish the Senate filibuster to make this action possible. But the Senate filibuster has degenerated into the requirement of an automatic super-majority for legislative passage, which is grossly undemocratic. It should have been abolished long ago.)
Thank you for your Insights and for your inspiration.. To expand the impact of your idea, I offer –"The Trump Court: Counting You Out."
Antonia's column is welcome amid the essays on Trump Court cases, as well as whether Biden should go. Too often Trump's criticism omits action or constructive ideas and a reader is left more discouraged, rather than motivated. Antonia’s approach offers constructive criticism, essential for progress.
Camus's writings from WWII remain relevant today, in the context of navigating political and social challenges, Camus emphasizes the importance of finding principles that bring about justice and happiness in turbulent times. This resonates with Antonia's call to action.
I support encouraging people to engage in down-ballot campaigns and initiatives--and providing a menu of ideas on how to help, regardless where they live. If Trump wins, a Democratic US House and Senate would be vital in holding him accountable and preventing the erosion of our democracy.. Statehouse races would become critical for giving people, as in Red states, something to work on, platforms to organize around, and the campaigns himself offer megaphones to alert Americans about the Tru.
Antonia's writing can inspire and guide efforts in these areas, making her contributions all the more valuable.
The Marbury Doctrine that the Supreme Court derived from its 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison has no Constitutional grounding: the Court simply usurped the power of legislative review for themselves. The Congress either made the decision that the Supreme Court could be trusted with this power, or they lacked the self-confidence to object. This absence of action established the tradition of accepting the Marbury "Doctrine" despite the Court's frequent failure over the years to live up to the trust that Congress acquiesced in giving them.
Two things cry out for finally making a change: 1. Trump demonstrated the frailty of Implicit traditions in the instance of someone unprincipled enough to ignore them; and 2. the Roberts Supreme Court, with its record of Consistently outrageous decisions, has arguably earned the title of worst in American history, wresting that disgraceful title from the Taney Court for its particularly outrageous decision regarding Dred Scott.
Consequently, if Democrats gain control of the federal government in the November election, they should also break implicit tradition and modify the 1803 Marbury Usurpation: legislate a mechanism that any Supreme Court decision affecting federal legislation will activate an automatic Congressional review--an opportunity, if they choose, to adjust the legislation to accommodate the Court decision or, with simple majority votes in both Houses, reject the Court decision in whole or in part. They should also establish a retrospective process to examine, for modification or reversal, past Court decisions (such as Citizens United, Dobbs, Heller, the Chevron revocation, or Trump v. United States). With these modifications the Supreme Court would still be allowed to offer a perspective on Congressional legislation, but not one that overrides the majority of both Houses. (Practically speaking, Congress would likely need to abolish the Senate filibuster to make this action possible. But the Senate filibuster has degenerated into the requirement of an automatic super-majority for legislative passage, which is grossly undemocratic. It should have been abolished long ago.)
typo?
This terrific article provides useful context on the ongoing war for corporate power.
mite b
This terrific article provides useful context on the ongoing war for corporate power:
typo on
antoniascatton.com
"I’ll get right back to you"
mite b
I’ll try to get right back to you
(no reply since 11-29-2023:"Would you dismiss (or endorse) messaging related to "Democrats growing a spine"... such as:
"Get the sense of the D with D-sense: Our name is UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE"...")
Thank you for your Insights and for your inspiration.. To expand the impact of your idea, I offer –"The Trump Court: Counting You Out."
Antonia's column is welcome amid the essays on Trump Court cases, as well as whether Biden should go. Too often Trump's criticism omits action or constructive ideas and a reader is left more discouraged, rather than motivated. Antonia’s approach offers constructive criticism, essential for progress.
Camus's writings from WWII remain relevant today, in the context of navigating political and social challenges, Camus emphasizes the importance of finding principles that bring about justice and happiness in turbulent times. This resonates with Antonia's call to action.
I support encouraging people to engage in down-ballot campaigns and initiatives--and providing a menu of ideas on how to help, regardless where they live. If Trump wins, a Democratic US House and Senate would be vital in holding him accountable and preventing the erosion of our democracy.. Statehouse races would become critical for giving people, as in Red states, something to work on, platforms to organize around, and the campaigns himself offer megaphones to alert Americans about the Tru.
Antonia's writing can inspire and guide efforts in these areas, making her contributions all the more valuable.
Your work here is becoming ever more important. I hope some more people are listening. Thank you.
Thank you!