5 ms·

... and constitutionality has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decisions.

• peterhadlaw 4y ago
  Their job is to find it, not court (pun intended) approval rating.
  • hackyhacky 4y ago
    The job of SCOTUS is to make a decision. Whether or not that decision has anything to do with the Constitution is anyone's guess. And in the case that their decision clearly defies the Constitution, there is nothing that anyone can do about it. In other words, like every other part of the government, their real job is politics. The only difference between SCOTUS and Congress is that the former is conveniently shielded from public opinion.
    • skissane 4y ago
      > And in the case that their decision clearly defies the Constitution, How can anything “clearly” defy the US Constitution, when it is drafted in such vague and sweeping language? (Not just the original document, even moreso later additions such as the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.) If the framers of the document didn’t want to give SCOTUS such immense discretion to decide what it means, they should have written it with more details, precision, elaboration - which would have narrowed the Court’s hermeneutic freedom.
      • hackyhacky 4y ago
        I would like to remind you that the framers of the Constitution did not give SCOTUS any discretion to interpret the Constitution. That was a right seized by them in Marbury v. Madison.
        • skissane 4y ago
          How are they supposed to make decisions under it if they aren’t allowed to interpret it? You can’t apply a law without interpreting. If the courts can’t interpret the constitution, they can’t apply it either. Marbury v Madison was just stating the obvious and inevitable consequences of having a judicial branch.
          • yamtaddle 4y ago
            > You can’t apply a law without interpreting. Hamilton observed that the courts don't apply the law. All they can do is talk about it. Which means, as he reckoned, that the other branches can just ignore them if they go too wack-a-doo. The court's perceived legitimacy is really important, in fact.
            • skissane 4y ago
              They apply the law in reaching a decision. Enforcing that decision is up to the other branches. If the US President and/or Congress wish to announce “we no longer accept the Supreme Court as having the final say as to what the constitution means, and will disregard any decisions by it which contradict our own interpretation of it” - they are free to unleash that constitutional pandemonium at any time - there is nothing SCOTUS can do to stop them.
              • juve1996 4y ago
                This is, of course, the point, and why a court that's perceived as partisan can be very dangerous.
                • skissane 4y ago
                  SCOTUS has been perceived as partisan since forever. What changes over time, is which party is calling the shots. But few can see partisanship when it is on their side.
                  • 4y ago
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• skissane 4y ago
  Constitutionality has everything to do with SCOTUS decisions, because de facto the US constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it does. You can believe that SCOTUS has interpreted it “wrong” - but that’s just your subjective personal opinion, of no greater significance than that of anyone else.
  • hackyhacky 4y ago
    So in other words, you are defining "constitutionality" to mean whatever SCOTUS says it means. So if they said, "First Amendment doesn't count any more, sorry for the confusion," then I guess there is no more Constitution. Your approach sounds like gaslighting at a grand scale. When we ask the population to set aside its own reason in the face of obviously incorrect decisions, you open the door to the end of democracy.
    • skissane 4y ago
      What’s obviously incorrect to one segment of the population is obviously correct to another. When you say “1st Amendment”, you are talking about something invented by SCOTUS. The original 1st Amendment was a lot narrower (it only applied to the federal government not the states.) It was only in the 1920s that SCOTUS decided it should apply to the states as well, even though there is no evidence that outcome was intended at the time of its adoption (or the adoption of the 14th). It isn’t “gaslighting”, it is legal realism, and paying attention to historical details.
      • hackyhacky 4y ago
        > What’s obviously incorrect to one segment of the population is obviously correct to another. That's exactly why I call it gaslighting. It brings to mind Sarah Palin's "alternative facts". Despite your miscellaneous feelings, objective reality exists, justice exists, and, ideally, the courts would be bound to follow both.
        • skissane 4y ago
          What on the earth are you talking about? The overturning of Roe v Wade? I live in a country with no constitutional right to an abortion (Australia) - and we have abortion available nationwide, even funded by the federal government. Whatever the rights or wrongs of allowing or prohibiting abortion, is a separate issue from whether a constitutional right to it ought to be interpreted to exist in a constitution which never explicitly provides for one.