4 ms·

> the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution. All of these scenarios exist because courts have interpreted the con

by tyre 10y ago

> the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution. All of these scenarios exist because courts have interpreted the constitution. I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Yes, it's complicated, but that is because real life is complicated. Tangentially, this is why something like Ethereum or other "Smart Contracts" are so hard and why lawyers exist. The real world gets complicated quickly.

int_19h 10y ago
> I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that. The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  You see Venezuala's Supreme Court reinterpreted the validity of their democratically elected representatives today? lol!
  - dang 10y ago
    Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN?
- avar 10y ago
  They're not the final arbiter, if the SCOTUS does something wrong the constitution can be amended to clarify or change the intent of the law. Then the SCOTUS will be beholden to that constitutional amendment. That there isn't political will to routinely do this in response to bad SCOTUS rulings is not an inherent problem with the system itself.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Some would say it's a feature, not a bug.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    The barrier to amend the constitution is so high, that it's virtually insurmountable in a highly partisan environment, if the ruling is itself partisan.
maehwasu 10y ago
let gets_complicated = "FDR is going to pack the court if I don't start finding ways to go along with him"

by tyre 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

> I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that. The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.

elastic_church 10y ago
You see Venezuala's Supreme Court reinterpreted the validity of their democratically elected representatives today? lol!
- dang 10y ago
  Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN?
avar 10y ago
They're not the final arbiter, if the SCOTUS does something wrong the constitution can be amended to clarify or change the intent of the law. Then the SCOTUS will be beholden to that constitutional amendment. That there isn't political will to routinely do this in response to bad SCOTUS rulings is not an inherent problem with the system itself.
- pc86 10y ago
  Some would say it's a feature, not a bug.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The barrier to amend the constitution is so high, that it's virtually insurmountable in a highly partisan environment, if the ruling is itself partisan.

maehwasu 10y ago

let gets_complicated = "FDR is going to pack the court if I don't start finding ways to go along with him"