3 ms·

Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretatio

Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist. For all it's faults, I would argue the Supreme Court has worked reasonably well - because the justices do not seek elections and do not owe loyalty to their appointees. And anything they do could be relatively easily undone if the US could ever be bother to pass laws again. In a way, you can almost think of their decisions as open-source. All of their arguments are written down and you can actually read their reasoning for yourself (as opposed to some of the dire interpretations offered by journalists). There are some notable exceptions (Alito and Thomas), but for the most part you can read their arguments for yourself and see that most of them are pretty professional and fair-minded. > I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If anything, the newest court is doing the opposite of what you are worried about. They are willing to throw out established precedence where there is not written law. In a way, the new court is leaning more democractic to a fault.

int_19h 3y ago
Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where the meaning of federal laws or regulations is unclear. The problem is that, ultimately, pretty much any law can be challenged and appealed all the way to SCOTUS - and if they choose to take the case and issue a ruling, there's no recourse within the system. That is an immense amount of power no matter how one looks into it - it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does, not even necessarily just passed legislation, and not just on the federal level (as any action by the state government can also be challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional wrt the federal constitution).
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The SC can only rule on cases that appear before them. The SC cannot just decide to rule on whatever they want.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    There are 250 million adults in the country who can sue over pretty much anything. It is not exactly difficult to arrange for a convenient case to land on SCOTUS plate - indeed, it has been done several times in history.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      The SC only hears a handful of cases in a year, and only those that have managed to bubble up through the lower courts. The SC does not invent cases they can then rule on.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does The Legislature and Executive can pass a new law that overrides a decision that ruled on existing law.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Not if the ruling was on constitutional grounds. Well, they can pass a new law and claim that it's constitutional, of course - but it would be likely to blocked right away in the lower courts if it is in blatant contradiction with the earlier ruling, regardless of whether those courts agree with the ruling itself. Worst case, it just gets appealed all the way back to SCOTUS which strikes it down again, so it's not at all like the usual 2/3 supermajority legislative override of the executive veto.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Congress can change the Constitution.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        Congress can submit an amendment for ratification. 3/4 of state legislatures would have to ratify it for constitution to actually change. But yes, you're right, that is the one and only check there is ... although even that one is weak, because no matter what the constitution actually says, the court can interpret it however it wants in practice - there's no shortage of examples.
lakecresva 3y ago
> Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist. This is pretty directly refuted by Dobbs. Roe v. Wade was not ambiguous and was a settled matter of constitutional law until the new court decided they didn't like it.
- hartator 3y ago
  > This is pretty directly refuted by Dobbs. Roe v. Wade was not ambiguous and was a settled matter of constitutional law until the new court decided they didn't like it. I don’t like the decision here as well for political reasons, but if you read the arguments the Supreme Court is just saying that abortion law is a state issue not a federal one. Which limits the power of the federal government. Which is good.
  - krapp 3y ago
    The part where women have to register their periods and have them tracked and might get arrested if they miss a cycle, or put in jail for buying contraceptives, or for googling the wrong things, or are forced to carry a dead fetus to term - which actually happened because in some states the ban on abortion is absolute, with fifteen states not even having exceptions for rape or incest - is not good. The part where doctors are afraid to perform procedures on pregnant women for fear of committing a felony? Not good. The part where Americans don't seem to care about the actual human cost of rights being taken away as long as it weakens the federal government is not good. Looking at how Southern states seem to be competing to out-fascist each other right now, devolving everything to states' rights seems like a bad idea. If it were entirely left up to the states, half of them would be hunting gays for sport. Having common standards as a culture enshrined in law and a central government strong enough to protect and enforce those standards also seems good. It's weird that this isn't even up for debate where gun rights are concerned but bodily autonomy, rights to privacy and free speech are all up in the air.
- nradov 3y ago
  There is no such thing as "settled" constitutional law for the Supreme Court. They are not bound by their own precedents and always have the authority to revisit prior decisions. I don't like the results of the Dobbs decision either. But the root cause of the problem was always legislative, not judicial. When the legislature fails to make the laws clear, anything that ends up in front of the Supreme Court is going to be a toss-up. Tell your members of Congress to do better.
asveikau 3y ago
This comment highlights why you shouldn't get legal opinions from tech discussion sites. I don't think you demonstrated any knowledge of why the supreme court exists in practical or theoretical terms, but you are quite confident in your view.

int_19h 3y ago

Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where the meaning of federal laws or regulations is unclear. The problem is that, ultimately, pretty much any law can be challenged and appealed all the way to SCOTUS - and if they choose to take the case and issue a ruling, there's no recourse within the system. That is an immense amount of power no matter how one looks into it - it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does, not even necessarily just passed legislation, and not just on the federal level (as any action by the state government can also be challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional wrt the federal constitution).

WalterBright 3y ago
The SC can only rule on cases that appear before them. The SC cannot just decide to rule on whatever they want.
- int_19h 3y ago
  There are 250 million adults in the country who can sue over pretty much anything. It is not exactly difficult to arrange for a convenient case to land on SCOTUS plate - indeed, it has been done several times in history.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The SC only hears a handful of cases in a year, and only those that have managed to bubble up through the lower courts. The SC does not invent cases they can then rule on.
WalterBright 3y ago
> it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does The Legislature and Executive can pass a new law that overrides a decision that ruled on existing law.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Not if the ruling was on constitutional grounds. Well, they can pass a new law and claim that it's constitutional, of course - but it would be likely to blocked right away in the lower courts if it is in blatant contradiction with the earlier ruling, regardless of whether those courts agree with the ruling itself. Worst case, it just gets appealed all the way back to SCOTUS which strikes it down again, so it's not at all like the usual 2/3 supermajority legislative override of the executive veto.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Congress can change the Constitution.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      Congress can submit an amendment for ratification. 3/4 of state legislatures would have to ratify it for constitution to actually change. But yes, you're right, that is the one and only check there is ... although even that one is weak, because no matter what the constitution actually says, the court can interpret it however it wants in practice - there's no shortage of examples.

lakecresva 3y ago

> Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist. This is pretty directly refuted by Dobbs. Roe v. Wade was not ambiguous and was a settled matter of constitutional law until the new court decided they didn't like it.

hartator 3y ago
> This is pretty directly refuted by Dobbs. Roe v. Wade was not ambiguous and was a settled matter of constitutional law until the new court decided they didn't like it. I don’t like the decision here as well for political reasons, but if you read the arguments the Supreme Court is just saying that abortion law is a state issue not a federal one. Which limits the power of the federal government. Which is good.
- krapp 3y ago
  The part where women have to register their periods and have them tracked and might get arrested if they miss a cycle, or put in jail for buying contraceptives, or for googling the wrong things, or are forced to carry a dead fetus to term - which actually happened because in some states the ban on abortion is absolute, with fifteen states not even having exceptions for rape or incest - is not good. The part where doctors are afraid to perform procedures on pregnant women for fear of committing a felony? Not good. The part where Americans don't seem to care about the actual human cost of rights being taken away as long as it weakens the federal government is not good. Looking at how Southern states seem to be competing to out-fascist each other right now, devolving everything to states' rights seems like a bad idea. If it were entirely left up to the states, half of them would be hunting gays for sport. Having common standards as a culture enshrined in law and a central government strong enough to protect and enforce those standards also seems good. It's weird that this isn't even up for debate where gun rights are concerned but bodily autonomy, rights to privacy and free speech are all up in the air.
nradov 3y ago
There is no such thing as "settled" constitutional law for the Supreme Court. They are not bound by their own precedents and always have the authority to revisit prior decisions. I don't like the results of the Dobbs decision either. But the root cause of the problem was always legislative, not judicial. When the legislature fails to make the laws clear, anything that ends up in front of the Supreme Court is going to be a toss-up. Tell your members of Congress to do better.

asveikau 3y ago

This comment highlights why you shouldn't get legal opinions from tech discussion sites. I don't think you demonstrated any knowledge of why the supreme court exists in practical or theoretical terms, but you are quite confident in your view.