3 ms·

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argum

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argument is good or not, they don't want to lock a different generation into having to obey present day opinions that would be unsuitable for the country as it will be then. The dissenting opinion can be cited as justification for changing the precedent, allowing those justices to come to a different conclusion.

gumby 6y ago
Are they cited in that manner? (I don’t know either way, just curious)
thephyber 6y ago
Perhaps, but it doesn't take a minority opinion to do so. When Muhammed Ali (formerly Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.) was charged with draft dodging, the SOCTUS ruled[1] 8-0 in favor of him, but specifically tailored the ruling to only him and not other draft dodgers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_...
int_19h 6y ago
It's such a missed opportunity, though. I think that a big problem with SCOTUS as it stands today, is that a simple majority of judges is sufficient to decide profound matters of constitutionality. But if the decision is 5:4, or even 6:3 - if there are so many dissenters - shouldn't this be taken as prima facie evidence that the constitution is ambiguous on the issue, and needs to be disambiguated? Imagine for a moment that any Supreme Court decision that causes such a split, automatically triggers the constitutional amendment process. And for every substantially different court opinion, the judges should come up with verbiage for an amendment that, if ratified, would result in them all joining that opinion. Whichever one passes, you have both your decision, and the constitution is actually updated to reflect it. If no amendment passes, then simple majority still decides, as today - but it doesn't set a binding precedent on the question of constitutionality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- josephcsible 6y ago
  While a good idea in theory, I feel like this would be pointless in practice, because none of the amendments would ever end up getting the supermajority of approval they'd need to pass.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    With the current state of affairs, yes, but it hasn't always been like that. The point here is more long-term - this significantly reduces the political stakes for SCOTUS appointments, so hopefully the court also becomes less politicized over time. Another goal is to make court decisions less dependent on the point in time at which they're made.

gumby 6y ago

Are they cited in that manner? (I don’t know either way, just curious)

thephyber 6y ago

Perhaps, but it doesn't take a minority opinion to do so. When Muhammed Ali (formerly Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.) was charged with draft dodging, the SOCTUS ruled[1] 8-0 in favor of him, but specifically tailored the ruling to only him and not other draft dodgers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_...

int_19h 6y ago

It's such a missed opportunity, though. I think that a big problem with SCOTUS as it stands today, is that a simple majority of judges is sufficient to decide profound matters of constitutionality. But if the decision is 5:4, or even 6:3 - if there are so many dissenters - shouldn't this be taken as prima facie evidence that the constitution is ambiguous on the issue, and needs to be disambiguated? Imagine for a moment that any Supreme Court decision that causes such a split, automatically triggers the constitutional amendment process. And for every substantially different court opinion, the judges should come up with verbiage for an amendment that, if ratified, would result in them all joining that opinion. Whichever one passes, you have both your decision, and the constitution is actually updated to reflect it. If no amendment passes, then simple majority still decides, as today - but it doesn't set a binding precedent on the question of constitutionality.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
josephcsible 6y ago
While a good idea in theory, I feel like this would be pointless in practice, because none of the amendments would ever end up getting the supermajority of approval they'd need to pass.
- int_19h 6y ago
  With the current state of affairs, yes, but it hasn't always been like that. The point here is more long-term - this significantly reduces the political stakes for SCOTUS appointments, so hopefully the court also becomes less politicized over time. Another goal is to make court decisions less dependent on the point in time at which they're made.