5 ms·
An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed
by lkjdsklf 4y ago
An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed.
tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
- hirako2000 4y agoIt puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite. I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
- lkjdsklf 4y ago> What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. It's not a stretch. They are literally "on a whim law makers." They decide what issues they want to take up and change the way they interpret the constitution depending on how they want to rule on an issue. In theory, they could be held in check by congress, but in practice that is impossible. Especially since the justice's are political weapons of congress. There's a reason the supreme court nominations have been huge campaign points for the last few elections. They have basically unchecked power. > The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored. We'll just have to agree to disagree. They choose how they want to interpret it depending on how they want to rule. There's no consistency and it's frankly a disgrace. Has been for a while too, this isn't something new to this current court.
- hirako2000 4y agoIt would be useful to provide at least a concrete example. Sounding very undoubtul doesn't imply being right or argumenting based on the truth. I will however do further reading and find out what may be so outrageous this court might have been up to.
- hirako2000 4y agoI have to concede, a long series of rulings are a disgrace. In the long run of this institution, not sure on the ratio of questionable vs rightful vs plain calamities judges have come up with historically. I stand on my previous comment and as you say would agree to disagree: the supreme court system _still_ works, somehow. Institutions at large are in chamble in the West, we could make a special case here but no obvious dissonance that I can see or hear from these judges. On this ruling. Politically biased? Of course. Corrupt? Not quite, but indirectly, very likely. Thanks for your thoughts. Agreed on them not being kept in check by Congress, not sure how the balance of power work in details, it would naturally more sense that congress gets at least some electing power and surely an avenue for dismissing them for misconduct, by 2/3 of votes or whatever. That would sound more balanced than the whichever passing president given the election or some judges who then sit on their thrones for life.
- saynay 4y agoMore like 5 people who get to be in charge of whatever they feel like at the time.