Tumgik
#checks and balances
kp777 · 8 months
Text
Kagan enters fray over Congress’ power to police Supreme Court - POLITICO
"It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. We’re not imperial,” Kagan told the audience of judges and lawyers attending the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. “Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes.”
140 notes · View notes
odinsblog · 11 months
Text
Although the three branches of the American government were designed to be coequal, the structure of the Constitution tells us something about the relative power of each branch, as envisioned by the framers.
Article I establishes the legislature. Article II establishes the executive branch. And Article III establishes the federal judiciary. It is true that the branches share powers and responsibilities. But it’s also true that the framers trusted Congress — the representative branch — with far more authority than it did the president or the Supreme Court.
Congress makes laws. Congress spends money. Congress approves the president’s cabinet and says whether he can appoint a judge or not. Congress structures the judiciary and Congress sets the size of the Supreme Court and the scope of its business.
The upshot of all of this is that when Congress calls, the other branches are supposed to answer — not as a courtesy, but as an affirmation of the rules of the American constitutional order. The modern Congress might be weak, and the presidency, against the expectations of the framers, might be the center of American political life, but it’s still newsworthy when a member of the executive branch says he or she won’t meet with the legislature.
Chief Justice John Roberts is in a different branch of government, the judiciary. But he — a constitutional officer confirmed to his seat by the Senate — is still subject to the power of Congress to question and investigate his conduct. When Congress calls, he too should answer.
Last week, Congress called the chief justice. In the wake of revelations concerning the friendship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow, a billionaire Republican donor, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, invited Roberts to testify at an upcoming hearing on Supreme Court ethics rules.
“There has been a steady stream of revelations regarding justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally,” Durbin wrote in his letter to the chief justice. “These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence.”
“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards,” Durbin went on to say. “I invite you to join it, and I look forward to your response.”
This week Roberts answered. He said, in a word, no.
“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” Roberts wrote. “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the chief justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
This deceptively polite reply sounds reasonable for as long as you can manage to forget the fact that it is questions about the ethical conduct of the court and its members that have compromised the independence of the court. Was Thomas influenced by the largess of his billionaire benefactor? Was Justice Samuel Alito influenced by an explicit campaign to curry favor with the conservative justices? Was Justice Neil Gorsuch influenced by the lucrative sale of a Colorado property, in the wake of his confirmation, to the head of a powerful law firm with ample business before the court?
It is with real chutzpah, in other words, that Roberts has claimed judicial independence in order to circumvent an investigation into judicial independence.
More striking than this evasion is the manner in which Roberts ended his reply. Faced with serious questions about the integrity of the court, he pointed to a nonbinding ethics document that has done almost nothing to prevent these situations from arising in the first place. “In regard to the Court’s approach to ethics matters,” he wrote, “I attached a Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices to which all of the current members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”
Roberts did not write an aggressive or confrontational letter. And yet, he is quietly making an aggressive and confrontational claim about his own power and authority and that of the court’s. “Separation of powers,” in Roberts’s view, means the court is outside the system of checks and balances that governs the other branches of government. “Judicial independence,” likewise, means neither he nor any other member of the court has any obligation to speak to Congress about their behavior.
The court checks, according to Roberts, but cannot be checked.
—The Polite Disdain of John Roberts
46 notes · View notes
animatejournal · 1 year
Video
Daffy Duck for President Directors: Spike Brandt & Tony Cervone Studio: Warner Bros. | USA, 2004
135 notes · View notes
j-a-n-e--d-o-e · 10 months
Text
So this is all bullshit but I've been hyper fixating on mha for months now to the point of having read and watched almost nothing else ( probably obvious given the state of my tumblr ) but what if the reason the hero rankings in MHA are effected by popularity and not just your stats is because The Top 10/20 are meant to act as a balance /overseer to the Commission?
Like we all know the hpsc are a shady organisation with no real public or gov. oversight, but what if that wasn't always the case? What If the Top Heroes were meant to be that oversight with public approval affecting rankings because that meant the top 10 better represented the views and beliefs of the general public. However, over time, as the hpsc grew more corrupt, they suppressed this information, buried the bi-laws related to it & altered hero school lessons so it was forgotten.
Heroes usually die young, rarely living to retirement age, and in the span of a single generation, the most important aspect of being a top 10 hero was completely forgotten. It went from being an important sociopolitical role to a mere Status symbol, and the hpsc were free to do as they please.
I just feel that it makes sense, especially as it feeds into the idea that the way their society is structured has been failing for a while now. The Hpsc Is super corrupt, and in my mind, they're the true evil within MHA, but I doubt they started out that way.
The idea that no one considered the HPSC going rogue when it was founded and raising child soldiers or profiting off what it was meant to stop is insane to me. I mean, they were dealing with the aftermath of societal collapse and government failure.
Bitter, traumatised people and you want me to believe they never worried? never doubted what it was they were doing?
No. They had to have known it was a possibility.
In my mind, the state of Japan in MHA, once you notice the cracks and shit is much more insidious and terrifying if there were checks and balances in place to prevent this outcome, they just weren't enough.
21 notes · View notes
edithshead · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
from Checks and Balances Binx Walton and Sage Elsesser by Tyler Mitchell styled by Julia Sarr-Jamois for Vogue UK, September 2020
12 notes · View notes
goodgrammaritan · 2 years
Text
What happened to all those checks and balances they always talked about when we were learning about the government in school?
56 notes · View notes
Text
Trying to explain open shelf inventory, profit/loss, and logistics to the company president I might as well be explaining Russian literature to this fucker. This comes after he questioned my abilities and skill set. I fucking swear his head was about to burst into flames. Just fuck all the way off and let ME worry with the figures man and you just look professional pulling the corporate suits dicks like ya know what’s up. Fuck!
8 notes · View notes
eaglesnick · 4 months
Text
“The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”   Caroline Kennedy
Spot the difference.
1. “RUSSIA’S upper house of parliament has approved a plan to grant President Putin new powers over the judiciary, despite growing international outcry over the Kremlin’s efforts to re-establish central government control.”  (The Times: 01/10/04)
2. “In November 2016, The Daily Mail ran a cover story with the now infamous title “Enemies of the People” attacking the three judges of the High Court of England and Wales who had ruled that the UK Government needed Parliament’s consent to give notice of Brexit.” (Springer Link: (05/02/21)
3. “Tens of thousands of Israelis have rallied in Jerusalem in support of controversial plans by the far-right government to reform the judiciary. It was the biggest demonstration of its kind yet. Plans include curbing the Supreme Court and giving the government control over the appointment of judges.”
4. “Home Office accused of pressurising judiciary over immigration    decisions…That the Home Office has sought to pressure the immigration tribunal over its bail decisions during a global pandemic shows alarming disrespect for the right to liberty, the rule of law and the separation of powers.” (Guardian: 06/05/20)
5. According to the (Cuban) constitution, the National Assembly controls judicial appointments and suspensions, and the Council of State exercises these powers when the assembly is not in session. The Council of State is also empowered to issue “instructions of a general character” to the courts, whose rulings typically conform to the interests of the PCC in practice. Judges are tasked with enforcing laws on vaguely defined offences such as “public disorder,” “contempt,” “disrespect for authority,” “precriminal dangerousness,” and “aggression,” which are used to prosecute the regime’s political opponents.”  (Freedom House; Cuba: 2021)
6.” Erdogan criticises top court, stoking judicial crisis in Turkey Main opposition party calls it president’s ‘attempt to eliminate the constitutional order…’ The latest crisis showed that Erdogan wants “more control over what happens in Turkey, including a judicial system that does what he wants, such as prosecuting and imprisoning his critics and opponents”, according to analyst Gareth Jenkins." (Aljazeera: 10/11/23)
7. “Supreme Court Judges branded 'enemies of the people’ after blocking Rwanda plan. Philip Davies MP told the Express that the ruling had sparked a “constitutional crisis”. He said: “I think we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. It is clear that Parliament has passed all the necessary legislation for this to happen, and the job of judges is to implement the laws passed by Parliament, not to rule on whether or not they like the policy.” (Express: 15/11/23)
Did you spot the difference? No, of course not as there are no differences. Dictators,  far-right and far-left governments across the world try - and often succeed - in controlling their   judiciary in order to minimise any legal opposition to their policies. That this is now happening in our country, a country that once prided itself on its democracy and the rule of law is a worrying, dangerous and unwelcome development in UK politics and must be vigorously resisted.
2 notes · View notes
supermusicallee · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
fufaitazu · 9 months
Text
fourloko ingeniously prevents you from chugging it too fast by making it not taste very good at all. after one hearty swallow you need to take like at least 2 minutes to cool down and let the taste leave your mouth. really fourloko is a pillar of responsible alcohol consumption
3 notes · View notes
amateurconfessions · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
Day 22 of posting my entire collage art journal in order
Pages 45-46, October 2022
daily wins, eternal losses, and a meeting of the cult of reason 
13 notes · View notes
karadin · 2 years
Text
Surprisingly, Supreme Court votes in favor of vets and workplace protections
The US Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling Wednesday that state agencies are not immune from private lawsuits under a federal law meant to protect employment rights of returning veterans.
The ruling will strengthen work protections for thousands of state-employed veterans returning to work after service in the Reserves or National Guard. The outcome is a victory for Le Roy Torres, a veteran and former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety. He told the agency that he could no longer serve as a state trooper and sought a comparable job to accommodate his service-related disability. When he was denied the job, he filed suit under federal law but lost in state courts. He appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court.  
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, joined by the other liberals as well as Roberts and in this case half an asshole for a change Kavanaugh.
assholes Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett dissented.
17 notes · View notes
nodynasty4us · 2 years
Link
Court packing has been widely discussed recently. But the Constitution also allows Congress to make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, to make a law that cases involving particular topics may not be appealed to the Supreme Court.
15 notes · View notes
bravecrab · 2 years
Text
Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers deserves a lot of criticism, from it's use of Bobby Driscoll's tragic history for laughs, to it's promotion of Disney's crusade for increased copyright law. Also that "2D" animation is fucking ugly.
But I want to talk about Copaganda, specifically one part in the film. Chip and Dale are recruited to the case because they are told by a cop that the cops probably won't solve the case due to red tape. They'll have to do a bunch of paperwork, get a warrant, and by then the bad guys will have escaped.
It's a cliche and Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers is far from the first film to include this sort of claim by police characters. It's a persistent claim, one meant to justify police's inability to make streets safer. And it's used to validate policy, for things like warrantless raids, or no knock raids.
It relies on the idea that criminals are easy to identify, that their guilt is without a shadow of a doubt, and police would easily catch the "bad guys" if it wasn't for all the bureaucracy. That's not how policing works. There has to be a presumed innocence, to avoid wrongful arrests. Except in reality Cops do not presume innocence, they racially profile criminals, and not only wrongfully arrest, but murder suspects.
The red tape is meant to stop this.
And in the narrative of movies, this line of dialogue is meant to move us along to cool gun fights and action. But it's copaganda, and it's fucked that in this example, a black police officer who should know the impact of racial profiling is the one to deliver it.
8 notes · View notes
Video
What if they all need to get checked? QTNA.
2 notes · View notes
anthonybialy · 7 days
Text
Lazy Fair
A president who doesn’t touch anything is the republic’s best hope.  But self-control is not a typical characteristic of applicants.  Americans who tire of being groped must rely on conditioning to dodge handsy executives.  Harassment doesn’t become legal when a politician lingers on a hug too long.
As with babysitters not letting charges juggle drills, the absence of destruction is tough to notice but crucial to sense.  A term would ideally be an actively passive process.  Sadly, interviewers are not about to hire some CEO who trusts them to negotiate.
Nostalgia junkies who miss the ancient era of 2019 are really just longing for Donald Trump to again be useless.  An all-time bluffer’s emblematic ineptitude despite rather brassy claims to the contrary constitute his version of effectiveness, which is to commandeer the bus wheel in order to drive it classier.  It’s just like how success at winning an election differs from whether or not the person who receives the most electoral votes may not be smart or good or talented.
The insatiable urge to grab everything for the alleged benefit of the fondles is far from the only thing Trump shares in common with a Clinton.  A horndog president too busy seducing a zaftig intern to do the same with the economy offered the best possible precedent in an era where nobody minds their own business.
Broke and busted Americans miss aspects the last president couldn’t manage to muck up.  It wasn’t for lack of trying.  But Trump’s inability to molest everything was a gift of an unanswered prayer to himself.  Doing things never works out for him despite the most unearned assurances in civilization’s history.  The person now ripping off perception prepared with a long career of pretending to be a corporate titan as he lost money spinning roulette wheels openly rigged in the house’s favor.
Business was better before taking on a president who thinks hassling everyone but shoplifters assists the economy.  Credit something a different false savior claimed to manifest when mere existence got it done.  The free market works fantastically when clumsy amateur mechanics don’t attempt needless repairs.  Relative prosperity must’ve been spurred by their savior laying his very normal-sized hands upon it.  Inspiring people to get rich by slapping names on trash is about as useful.
All thriving takes is enough restraint to stop printing money.  I know it’s tempting to think you can get rich by having more.  But even the Goonies realized they couldn’t get away with running the presses.  The Treasury’s currency is a half-step above counterfeit.  Handing it out makes it worthless, which is one of those mean things like ice cream being unhealthy.
Explaining to the incumbent that not everything wanted happens isn’t going to sink in now.  After all, this is not just someone who’s spent a lifetime in politics but specifically Biden.  The commander-in-chief has enough trouble understanding how neckties work.  How can you get something that’s wider then one’s head around one’s neck?  Whoever dresses him must explain what’s happening every morning.
Fuel expenses do something as remarkable as the commodity itself making cars go.  All a president has to do is nothing for the cost to become reasonable.  It’s not for lack of gasoline conglomerates trying to pump up prices, as they want to sell it at a the same price per volume as plutonium laced with meth.  Meanwhile, those consuming it aspire to pay as much as they would for jugs of emergency water from Save-A-Lot.  I wonder if there’s a way for them to meet in the middle.
A president can take credit for the affordability of traveling around, although the ambulatory don’t have to give it.  Trusting adults like they’ve been given allowances for the first time is inscrutable notion in an era where whoever’s president defines not only the government but the nation.  Those things are supposed to be separate, too, for the record.
Two awful idiots like getting their hands on others as respective manifestations of their grabby philosophies.  Decent people wish it were only figurative.  The prospective final two are different styles of perverts.  The one who thinks you’ll be impressed by what an alpha stud he is if he beds enough peroxide donor recipients equipped with plastic chassis vies with the creep who molests wives other than his own and any children within his greasy reach.  But you do get to pick.
An inept presidency takes different forms.  Based on the rather pushy take on the presidency that’s been trendy this century, failing at grabbing is a triumph for the respect of those the leader hopes to help by intervening.  Doofus ex machina offers a most unsatisfying conclusion.
Lickspittles who worship the previous president for what he does should be thankful for what he didn’t.  After all, the only good parts came when he left things alone.  Praising Trump for aspects that thrived because he failed to toy with them sums him up in a way cult enlistees can’t grasp.  The best businessman of all time couldn’t figure out how to violate every aspect, and he naturally demands credit.
A mature nation needs a different kind of toddler president.  This hasn’t been a place for grownups despite time advancing indifferently.  Anyone with wisdom at any age avoids the current variety which throws tantrums around or past the age of 80.  The ability to restrain shrieking is common amongst many humans in kindergarten who don’t go on to become president.
Thorough adults should seek a presidential option who treats the nation as a visit to a childless aunt’s house.  Respect the wishes of someone who acquired fragile items.  Refraining from smashing like a big boy is part of becoming head of state.  The fact it’s not explains why the state heads the wrong way.
0 notes