4 ms·

The language of the constitution is pretty clear. So what this says to me is that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution. While these thefts are d

The language of the constitution is pretty clear. So what this says to me is that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution. While these thefts are disturbing, this lack of accountability from the Supreme Court will ultimately lead to much worse crimes.

DannyBee 10y ago
The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the constitution means. So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves). You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments. They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)
- sathackr 10y ago
  > Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state. Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.

DannyBee 10y ago

The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the constitution means. So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves). You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments. They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)

sathackr 10y ago
> Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state. Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.