Tinidril

I support the criticisms, but history will just see this as the thousandth time this has happened across the globe, and not nearly the only place it's happening right now.

Generally speaking revolutions like you speak of are not a feature of the modern world. They only happen when a stronger and more wealthy outside force helps drive them. That's notably not something that can happen in the strongest and most wealthy country in the world.

Narrator: No, no they won't.

Of Congress approves then they are doing so within their constitutional powers. There would be no crime. It would just be another legal bribe.

The constitution clearly doesn't guarantee you an answer from the courts to redress every grievance. You might get a hearing to determine whether or not you have a basis to receive a trial, but that trial isn't guaranteed.

Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action. It is formally recognized as such in many countries. That has not lead to the trampling of constitutions.

It's not just Congress that can abuse their power. We have seen multiple judicial rulings in the last decade that are based on fraudulent constitutional interpretation.

It's a matter of interpretation as to whether any rules were actually broken. The DNC has four VPs, two are women and two are men. Given the current controversy and the current crisis of confidence in Democratic leadership, the damage this will do to both the party and public opinion of DEI policies should be weighed against whatever "damage" this procedural issue allegedly did.

The fact that this issue started moving months ago is irrelevant. The decision is being made now, and nobody with a brain is going to believe that this isn't being done, at least in part, to protect useless incumbents that don't belong in the Democratic party.

Especially when mining of rare earth metals is starting to play a big role in geopolitics.

OK, let's flip that argument. What are the limitations of judicial review? Can justices declare everything Congress passes to be unconstitutional? (You know there are wacky Republican "scholars" who would agree with them).

Of course not. Legislative power is wielded by Congress, not the courts. Many countries, for example the UK or the Netherlands, expressly forbid judicial review of legislation passed by parliament, exactly for this reason. Legislative power should belong to representatives elected by the people.

I don't agree that it is at all clear that "cases" includes challenges to the validity of the law itself. Adding and removing laws is supposed to be a legislative process, and therefore a political one.

Cool. I guess I was a little harsh and assuming there myself. That's my bad.

You should have continued to this part.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is the basis for Congress to strip jurisdiction and therefore judicial review.

I don't know who you think "they" is, but the "they" to which I belong is currently out of power in all three branches. I don't change my opinions for convenience. You don't know me so please stfu about things you have no way of knowing.

Based on what part of the constitution? Congress has the right to define the scope of judicial authority as far as I am aware. That actually is the separation of powers. Congress is elected and judges aren't. Judicial review is not in the US constitution at all. I don't know about the Texas constitution.

Not actually true. Judicial review is not in the constitution. It has been interpreted as being implied by the constitution, but not as absolute. My understanding is that the US Congress has the right to exclude things from judicial review. I've never heard consideration of doing it at the state legislature level though. It's definitely ballsy.