4 ms·
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 de
by 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 agoI 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 agoHow 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 agoThey 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 agoThis is, of course, the point, and why a court that's perceived as partisan can be very dangerous.
- skissane 4y agoSCOTUS 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.
- juve1996 4y agoNo it hasn't. It has had periods of being more, and less, polarized, based on the overton window.
- skissane 4y agoThe Warren and Burger courts were dominated by liberals. Under Rehnquist and Roberts, SCOTUS has become increasingly conservative-dominated. If that conservative turn is “partisan”, why isn’t the same true for the liberalism which preceded it? Many view the Lochner era (1897-1937) as being defined by “conservative judicial activism”. If the current conservative period is “partisan”, why not that earlier one too? But if the Lochner era is “partisan”, then partisanship has infected SCOTUS for well over a century.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]