3 ms·
> so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Or the constitution can be amended.
by ori_b 5y ago
> so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up.
Or the constitution can be amended.
- voidfunc 5y agoThis was Scalia's position basically.. he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.
- eigen 5y ago> he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution. during the time Scalia was on the US Supreme Court (1986-2016), there was 1 amendment to the US constitution (27th) that was took 202 years for approvals. since I don't think he could be considered naive, it is almost certain he was disingenuous.
- jack_h 5y agoWhy would he 'almost certain[ly]' be disingenuous? He stated in at least one interview that he believed the amendment process was too onerous in its requirements.
- ceejayoz 5y agoSure, but I don't blame the Court at times for going "sure, we could reject this, and cause a couple decades worth of clear, widespread harm, which might generate enough political will to push one through" and noping out.