5 ms·

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 the

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.
        juve1996 4y ago
        No it hasn't. It has had periods of being more, and less, polarized, based on the overton window.
        skissane 4y ago
        The 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.
        juve1996 4y ago
        > why isn’t the same true for the liberalism which preceded it? > why not that earlier one too? I never made any claims on these other eras. It could be, an argument could be made. but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions.
        skissane 4y ago
        > but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. This is the Roberts court. > Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions. What does “partisan” mean in this context? What makes this court “partisan”? If “partisan” means displaying ideological favouritism, then the court has been partisan for a very long time, and this court is not fundamentally more “partisan” than its predecessors, even as the favoured ideology has shifted over time - completely independently of whether I or anyone agrees with any of those decisions. Whereas, if that’s not what you mean by “partisan”, what do you mean by it?

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.
      - juve1996 4y ago
        No it hasn't. It has had periods of being more, and less, polarized, based on the overton window.
        skissane 4y ago
        The 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.
        juve1996 4y ago
        > why isn’t the same true for the liberalism which preceded it? > why not that earlier one too? I never made any claims on these other eras. It could be, an argument could be made. but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions.
        skissane 4y ago
        > but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. This is the Roberts court. > Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions. What does “partisan” mean in this context? What makes this court “partisan”? If “partisan” means displaying ideological favouritism, then the court has been partisan for a very long time, and this court is not fundamentally more “partisan” than its predecessors, even as the favoured ideology has shifted over time - completely independently of whether I or anyone agrees with any of those decisions. Whereas, if that’s not what you mean by “partisan”, what do you mean by it?