- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Friendly reminder: Congress has the power to reshape the entire Judicial branch
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:02 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:02 am
Up to and including SCOTUS.
The Republicans who run Congress won’t do anything.
Why? Because they get to complain about judges in election years for contributions and votes.
The Republicans who run Congress won’t do anything.
Why? Because they get to complain about judges in election years for contributions and votes.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 6:03 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:17 am to weagle1999
They won’t change it because it’s a part of their plan to slow down the Trump agenda, outlast him, frustrate him until the next Uniparty guy can be installed, then they can go back to business as usual.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:18 am to weagle1999
quote:
The Republicans who run Congress won’t do anything.
Why? Because they get to complain about ____________ in election years for contributions and votes.
This has been their M.O. since Newt left. They HATE governing. They loved being in the minority and not being "responsible" for anything. They got to go to all the cocktail parties and the Sunday news shows loved them.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:20 am to weagle1999
Congress doesn’t do much of anything anymore except to serve itself.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:23 am to weagle1999
quote:
The Republicans who run Congress won’t do anything.
The Democrats who ran congress didn’t do anything either. Why? Because both parties have/had a few members who are sensible enough to understand that the critical judicial institutions should not be undermined.
Once one of the parties loses this important minority chaos will reign, and we will lose our democracy the same way the UK is losing theirs - and for the same reason. The UK is losing their democracy because they have no written constitution to restrain the politicians. Allowing the elected branches to bully the judiciary, as you envision, has the same effect as erasing the constitution. If it is done, expect the same fate as the UK is suffering.
I don’t know what form the chaos will take, but I assure you it will not be good government.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:52 am to weagle1999
This is what i wrote in the Amy Behrman thread
Congress was never intended to be a life sustaining endeavor.
quote:
congress has the power. They refuse to use it.
For the record, our founders put trust in congress to do the right thing. Once they discovered the ability to rule forever and enrich themselves, our system became corrupted.
Congress was never intended to be a life sustaining endeavor.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:56 am to Penrod
quote:Relying on the sensibility of politicians, especially Dem politicians, to keep restrained, is lunacy.
The Democrats who ran congress didn’t do anything either. Why? Because both parties have/had a few members who are sensible enough to understand that the critical judicial institutions should not be undermined.
The Reps are feckless. The Dems are ruthless, any means necessary types. You think they will allow a member of their own party with a minority view to stop their plans, laughable.
Keeping the Judiciary in line does not translate to some wholesale change or abandonment of constitutional principles. It is part of the Legislature's constitutional responsibilities.
A good start would be to prevent District Judges from issuing wholesale, nationwide injunctions. They should be limited to the district they are a part of. If your choice is to continue to allow them, Congress could also make it a requirement that any nationwide injunction issued below the SCOUTUS level, should be immediately subject to review by a multiple judge panel at a higher level prior to implementation.
Neither breaks the constitution, but both have a significant effect of curtailing judicial activism.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 6:58 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 6:57 am to dafif
quote:
Congress was never intended to be a life sustaining endeavor.
It was viewed as a part time public service job at inception.
If it had occurred to the founders that a career would be made of it they would have put in term limits.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:01 am to weagle1999
Some day this board will learn that the current set of Republicans are mostly old school democrats. It is a Uniparty. They are here to make themselves rich. There is a reason they won't stop this or the known grift in places like MN. They are getting paid too
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:07 am to weagle1999
USAID cuts hurt them too.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:14 am to Penrod
quote:
we will lose our democracy the same way the UK is losing theirs - and for the same reason. The UK is losing their democracy because they have no written constitution to restrain the politicians. Allowing the elected branches to bully the judiciary, as you envision, has the same effect as erasing the constitution. If it is done, expect the same fate as the UK is suffering.
The one issue I take with this is that the UK hasn't "lost their democracy."
The "democracy" is the whole problem. They didn't lose it, they voted it away.
What's really happened is that they didn't have enough limits placed on their democracy. They had too much of a democracy. It was too pure a democracy to survive.
And the big problem is that, by definition, democracy is what populists want.
They want politics to be a constant ongoing WWF battle between their team and the opposing team with as few rules and limits as possible, preferably one in which their (elected) King can just unilaterally make decisions without having to worry about nuisances like laws or courts or Constitutions.
The Founders did not want a "democracy." They wanted something with limits, and they wanted to limit participation. In their world you didn't get to decide who the president was going to be just because you were 18+ and could fog a mirror.
That's the whole problem with democracy. The purer it is, the less likely you'll be able to keep it. Because with a "democracy" you can vote to replace it with fascism or socialism or totalitarianism some other "ism," and the wider the net of people you allow to vote, the greater the chances that you will do so.
Look at the number of absolute morons on here who advocate for the United States to resort to tactics like El Salvador to control crime. Throw out due process, frick the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments, we gots' to be tough on crime!
Without limits, the morons eventually get their way. Because there are a whle lot more of them then there are of you.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:16 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
Some day this board will learn that the current set of Republicans are mostly old school democrats. It is a Uniparty. They are here to make themselves rich.
Some day they will also have to confront that Tommy Tuberville is second only to Nancy Pelosi on that list.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The "democracy" is the whole problem. They didn't lose it, they voted it away.
What's really happened is that they didn't have enough limits placed on their democracy. They had too much of a democracy. It was too pure a democracy to survive.
I think I understand what you're saying, but you're attributing it to the wrong variable. Just to jump to the major characteristics of our government that sometimes get discussed on this board when people (not saying you) do the "we're not a democracy" retardation.
We are a
quote:
Constitutional (A written document creates the limits and procedure of government)
Federal (A national and smaller segments of governing)
Democratic (Citizens are allowed to participate in the governmental process via voting)
Republic (Representatives are chosen, via voting and appointment, to represent citizens)
Previous post
The UK is only 2 of those things: A democratic republic. Parliament governs the entire country and isn't limited by a constitution.
The issue with the UK is the lack of the Constitution, not the democracy.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:27 am to TrueTiger
quote:
quote:
Congress was never intended to be a life sustaining endeavor.
It was viewed as a part time public service job at inception.
Interestingly, state legislatures that are part time are liked a lot more than those that have full time career politicians.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:38 am to weagle1999
The Judicial branch protects sitting members of Congress using the FISA court (Boasberg). They control the information that becomes exposed to sunlight.
And, in turn, the SSCI protects the Judiciary.
It is the proverbial “reach around “
And, in turn, the SSCI protects the Judiciary.
It is the proverbial “reach around “
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:39 am to Penrod
quote:
few members who are sensible enough to understand that the critical judicial institutions should not be undermined.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on Birthright Citizenship. I.e., that people can just enter the US illegally or legally, have a child within our Border, and said child becomes a citizen. So where was the SC when since the Founding there were REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFIERS before immigrants could become citizens? Foremost that potential citizens were required to pledge allegiance to the Constitutional Principles of the God-given Rights-based Republic.
The Courts have ABANDONED the very Principles which gives them power. As such they are rogue and their power is fraudulent if not conspiratorial and traitorous. They should be "undermined", but it won't be by the feckless and self-serving Congress which has abandoned Constitutional Principle for Transnational Progressive Ideology, as some superior form of Universal altruism.
Look to the UK and imagine if their citizenry were armed as a guard against tyrannical government. Would the citizenry tolerate a 'government' which enabled and encouraged the rape and torture of a quarter million of their innocent young girls if they had power to resist?
It's a bait and switch; read your Bible and know that Satan will appear "as an angel of light" and establish a 'World Government' based on "the number" (Digital), and when push comes to shove re "herding cats", then turn on and slaughter those who reject it's DEI ploy. Our Congress has bought into TP, DEI and Marxism. Simple and true.
My problem is how I react to this coming scenario: stand up and fight via words and/or "whatever it takes" locally, against it by exposing this and/or meeting the murderous and heathen minions in the streets as societal infrastructure collapses, or be quiet and move to the next life, as I am old and realizing that a fight is suicidal given the extraordinary weaponry that is coming via AI.
Decisions! Decisions!
Thank you Jesus. Lord come quickly.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:41 am to Penrod
quote:
don’t know what form the chaos will take, but I assure you it will not be good government.
I think many Americans would say it’s already been many, many, many years since we’ve had good government.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:42 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
read your Bible and know that Satan will appear "as an angel of light" and establish a 'World Government' based on "the number" (Digital), and when push comes to shove re "herding cats", then turn on and slaughter those who reject it's DEI ploy.
Oh boy.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:44 am to Penrod
If I were a Congressman, I would make federal judges easier to remove for bad behavior, I would give them a mandatory retirement age, and I would split up certain federal circuits and increase the number of judges in order to speed up the appeals process. I would also pass legislation regarding limiting the ability of district judges to perform nationwide injunctions on federal actions, and possibly create a separate court out if DC designed to hear those types of cases specifically (which appeals directly to SCOTUS).
Popular
Back to top

8











