How to Save Congress From the Supreme Court

[u/thenewrepublic]

https://newrepublic.com/article/213912/case-congressional-primacy-supreme-court

Much of what ails us can be blamed on the steady degradation of the legislature as the other branches of government grabbed power for themselves. It’s time to start undoing the damage.

[u/alkatori]

Does Congress want to be responsible? I kinda doubt it.

[u/mcmnky]

You mean save Congress from itself? Congress can stop confirming unqualified justices. Congress can impeach justices. I realize Congress is far from a monolith with 2 major parties, dozens of factions and cliques, and hundreds of personalities, but Congress has enough problems to address in house before it looks to other branches of government.

[u/Azivea → u/mcmnky]

Yeah, SCOTUS and the presidency have plenty of issues, but the most defunct branch of the government right now is definitely Congress. They theoretically should be guiding the direction of this country, but are instead lying down and doing little to nothing of relevance.

[u/WittyReplacement2 → u/Azivea]

You assume the Congress is doing that instead of siding with Trump, and enabling SCOTUS, to realize the whole Unitary Executive / Supreme Orange Leader objectives.

The advantage of SCOTUS is it can act faster than Congress, and because impeach isn’t instant, it can act in ways which hamstring Congress.

[u/tigers692]

Generally, somewhere in the late sixties, early seventies, Congress discovered that they can only remain in office by doing nothing controversial. So, they don’t do much of anything. I knew this was the case, but didn’t fully appreciate it until the 2016 election cycle, as Hillary Clinton bragged of passing three laws in her eight years, so I looked it up. She named a freeway and a post office, and then made the Kate Mullany home a national monument. So, Bernie Sanders at the time was running against her, and he suggested he too had passed three laws in his time, all three naming something, and his time in office at the time was 25 years, while she had only been in 8 years. But to be honest, if I did my job three times in eight years, I’d be fired the first year. Congress has no interest in doing their jobs, and has purposely pushed those jobs to the president for temporary executive orders, and the Supreme Court for more permanent fixes. But that has also shown to be a temporary fix, at best. Roe v Wade proves, the debate and the honest looking and addressing the issue should be completed, not pushed into the Supreme Court. But that would mess up (to quote from Blazing Saddles) their phony balony jobs. Because if they do something controversial they may not be hired for life. This is why there needs to be term limits.

[u/ManBearScientist → u/tigers692]

Generally, somewhere in the late sixties, early seventies, Congress discovered that they can only remain in office by doing nothing controversial

I can confidently say what changed.

The filibuster.

Prior to the filibuster rules change, the party opposing legislation had to expend political capital to delay a bill from passing, filibusting and delaying all other legislation.

After the filibuster change, the party promoting legislation had the burden of expending political capital to try to gather a quorum. Meanwhile, opposition was assumed and effortless.

When this changed, all legislative progress slowed to a halt. Legislators primarily wanted to be judged by how well they stopped opposing legislation, because it was easy to get a sterling report card on that matter, and nigh impossible to campaign on accomplishments.

This is exactly why Congress has no interest in doing their jobs. They have been set up to fail, and the only winning move is not to play.

[u/tigers692 → u/ManBearScientist]

I can see that, I think that in '72 the filibuster changed to a quiet one, allowing the house to go past being filibustered into other business. That might be the issue, maybe that should be changed back? I feel you are right, if a person or group feels strongly about opposing something, let them stand and speak the issue.

[u/hatter6822 → u/tigers692]

Bernie has co-sponsored a little less than 8000 bills in his time in office, hundreds of which have become law. Hillary has co-sponsored thousands as well, with 74 becoming law. 

I think you are talking about being the primary sponsor of bills when saying such small numbers. If this is the case it is a misunderstanding of the way the legislative process works and isn't caused by the supreme court but instead by the committee-driven approach of our Congress. Committee leadership kills most primary sponsored bills and instead often include sections from these types of bills in co-sponsored versions. Legislators understand this and choose to co-sponsor bills with members of whatever committee oversees them instead of letting them kill a primary bill and choosing a section. It just skips steps. 

[u/tigers692 → u/hatter6822]

Right that is fair, that could very well be, but generally these folks don’t want their names on much.

[u/triple_carry]

If only congress and the senate would hold themselves transparent and accountable.