4 ms·

No dude, that's the point of having written laws. Since Hammurabi.

colejohnson66 6y ago
And when those written laws are unconstitutional? That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches. This is correct, but not intended to be the source of law(1). In fact, Supreme Court decisions aren't a law per se, but a deterrent in creating legally questionable situations. (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law, but the deterrent is significantly weaker in practice than a written law as it's scrutinized more closely as a matter of interpretation, court makeup, and public opinion.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law Minor nitpick: Not all decisions can be overridden by law. Cases dealing with constitutionality particularly. If the Supreme Court says something is a Constitutional right, only two things can overturn it: (1) a Constitutional Amendment, and (2) another Supreme Court decision[a]. [a] Brown v. Board, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson[b] [b] Well, not exactly. They didn’t say they were overturning that decision, but it made the old one moot by saying the opposite of it (leading to the same result).
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      A Constitutional Amendment is an "amendment" to a law (the Constitbution), although I would say that's the same as any other law insofar as it's a sum of written parts. Also, SC decisions are generally limited in some context, so there's no "need" to amend over it, as long as you can challenge again under a different political climate (court makeup or public opinion).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ska 6y ago
No dude, that's the point of having written laws. Which invariably need interpretation and evaluation for consistency; hence a court with oversight.

And when those written laws are unconstitutional? That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches.

Supermancho 6y ago
> That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches. This is correct, but not intended to be the source of law(1). In fact, Supreme Court decisions aren't a law per se, but a deterrent in creating legally questionable situations. (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law, but the deterrent is significantly weaker in practice than a written law as it's scrutinized more closely as a matter of interpretation, court makeup, and public opinion.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law Minor nitpick: Not all decisions can be overridden by law. Cases dealing with constitutionality particularly. If the Supreme Court says something is a Constitutional right, only two things can overturn it: (1) a Constitutional Amendment, and (2) another Supreme Court decision[a]. [a] Brown v. Board, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson[b] [b] Well, not exactly. They didn’t say they were overturning that decision, but it made the old one moot by saying the opposite of it (leading to the same result).
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    A Constitutional Amendment is an "amendment" to a law (the Constitbution), although I would say that's the same as any other law insofar as it's a sum of written parts. Also, SC decisions are generally limited in some context, so there's no "need" to amend over it, as long as you can challenge again under a different political climate (court makeup or public opinion).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ska 6y ago

No dude, that's the point of having written laws. Which invariably need interpretation and evaluation for consistency; hence a court with oversight.