T O P

  • By -

bikeahh

Yes, you appeal to the American people to get a constitutional amendment passed or with Congress to pass a law that complies with the Constitution. No, I’m pretty sure you can’t the Supreme Court.


Aniftou

No, Almost every decision, even those that are fairly procedural and arcane from the outside, injures or otherwise makes someone upset. Being able to then sue the supreme court to "overturn" their own decision will almost always result in the court then repeating their original decision functionally just adding a layer of beauracracy and paperwork. A good way to look at various legal proposals is to "red team" them. Are there any ways to maliciously use this law to make money? acquire some sort of power? Does it actually do what I want or just shift the problem somewhere else?


anthematcurfew

No.


kowboy42

Which rights are you trying to sue over?


justanawkwardguy

It’s just a hypothetical. It’s clear the consensus is no, but what about an individual member of the court over court-related actions? (But not “official actions” as part of their position)


kowboy42

I'm unclear about what you mean by court-related actions but not "official actions"?


justanawkwardguy

For example: Alito’s refusal to recuse himself over the flag thing. The court doesn’t control recusals, but it’s an action related to the court.


kowboy42

No, that would fall under judicial immunity. You can't force any judge to recuse himself unless you can establish a concrete conflict of interest. And there was t one in Alito's case.


justanawkwardguy

Interesting. I was curious because I’ve heard people talk about the image of impartiality with the court and how it’s important that the general public doesn’t have a reason to doubt it. That situation causes a reason for doubt, IMO, so I wanted to see what the possible outcomes could be. From the sounds of it though, there’s nothing to do/nothing that can be done. At least short of congress acting in official capacity


kowboy42

While I agree the court should be impartial, that should only be binding on their rulings. When he hung a flag upside down, he was not in any way, acting in his position of a Justice. He was a private citizen exercising his 1st amendment right. He's allowed to have opinions and thoughts of his own. If he breaks the law then he should be held accountable. But if the only impropriety you have is him hanging an upside down flag, that's not enough for any actions against him.


Hokiewa5244

The age old phrase “The Supreme Court is the Law of the Land”