3 ms·

>> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. S

>> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. Should they have overruled that? "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" They upheld that. Should they have overruled it? They had to overrule something. People are mad because they didn't overrule the Equal Protection Clause.

Spivak 3y ago
That's not how this works. The supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean A in the original case and decided that limited discrimination didn't violate the constitution. Disagree with it all you want, I'll join you, but that was the ruling. Today the supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean B and struck down their previous decision. Also lol our constitution isn't anything blind and both acknowledges and establishes different classes of person in order to make rules about them.
- parineum 3y ago
  After being presented with new information, they came to a different conclusion. As a result of their previous decisions, the data showed that the limited discrimination allowed has had a larger effect than anticipated and led to an outcome of less than limited discrimination.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they did. Honestly, I care more that the court makes a decision than they make the right one. They took a dispute over ambiguous law and disambiguated it. After that the ball is in the other branches' courts. Legislation that outright banned affirmative action would have been constitutional and we let the status quo stand for 45 years without feeling the need to intervene. I can only speak for myself but a ruling that people just accept and don't feel the need to pass new legislation to correct is to me the gold standard.
    - parineum 3y ago
      I don't think that's the case. The effects of a law can end up being unconstitutional, that's something that may only reveal itself over time.

Spivak 3y ago

That's not how this works. The supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean A in the original case and decided that limited discrimination didn't violate the constitution. Disagree with it all you want, I'll join you, but that was the ruling. Today the supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean B and struck down their previous decision. Also lol our constitution isn't anything blind and both acknowledges and establishes different classes of person in order to make rules about them.

parineum 3y ago
After being presented with new information, they came to a different conclusion. As a result of their previous decisions, the data showed that the limited discrimination allowed has had a larger effect than anticipated and led to an outcome of less than limited discrimination.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they did. Honestly, I care more that the court makes a decision than they make the right one. They took a dispute over ambiguous law and disambiguated it. After that the ball is in the other branches' courts. Legislation that outright banned affirmative action would have been constitutional and we let the status quo stand for 45 years without feeling the need to intervene. I can only speak for myself but a ruling that people just accept and don't feel the need to pass new legislation to correct is to me the gold standard.
  - parineum 3y ago
    I don't think that's the case. The effects of a law can end up being unconstitutional, that's something that may only reveal itself over time.