11 ms·

I think the issue is that the Supreme Court has established itself as a parallel legislative branch. It can arbitrarily choose to re-examine the constitutionali

I think the issue is that the Supreme Court has established itself as a parallel legislative branch. It can arbitrarily choose to re-examine the constitutionality of an established thing, and it can also reverse its past opinions. There should be a time limit beyond which the Supreme Court cannot act. If nobody has challenged the constitutionality of something in 10 or 20 years, it should be implicitly constitutional, and no court opinion should be allowed to change that. Similarly, if the Supreme Court has already made a decision, it should not change it unless the relevant laws or the relevant parts of the constitution have changed. The right way of changing the constitutional status of an established practice should be changing the constitution itself.

cafard 3y ago
Should its own rulings be as binding? Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Of course. The job of the judiciary branch is to establish what the laws actually mean. If people don't like the decisions, the right process is telling the legislative branch to change the laws.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    The actual process is to appoint new SCOTUS judges and they just re-interpret the meaning to your liking. No legislation required.
    - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
      Works out well for the legislature too. Plenty of topics to campaign on. Plenty of chance to grandstand on social media, in hearings, in the regular media. Get re-elected while solving no problems. "Half" the population will always vote for you because the alternative is socialist/fascist. It's a version of the lazy google engineer [1] that makes less money but has potential for national fame and maybe some insider trading. If the legislature was getting screwed by this arrangement there would be a lot less deadlock in congress and the power of the judicial branch would be relatively less. And somehow this take is somehow less cynical then yours? What a world we live in. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2JaAnMMo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2JaAnMMo0
paulddraper 3y ago
You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism > Originalism is a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and instead favor modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment. > Proponents of originalism argue that originalism was the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence. Note that this philosophy -- for better or worse -- runs counter to many modern rulings of courts. Example of decisions that differed from accepted understanding of the Constitution+Amendments at time of ratification: * Gideon v Wainwright * Lemon v Kurtzman * Roe v Wade * Obergefell v Hodges
- lisper 3y ago
  Brown v Board of Education
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    No, not really. It was not universally believed that public school segregation was compatible with the 14th Amendment when it was ratified. Originalists may have something to say about the legal reasoning in the opinion, but Brown's victory itself is not a counterexample. I've never heard an originalist say anything but that Brown v Board conformed to the original meaning of the 14th amendment.
    - lisper 3y ago
      That's because modern originalists are embarrassed by this, because it starkly reveals how untenable originalism is. But it's a fact. Look up George Wallace some time. Segregation and Jim Crow were the law of the land for 100 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, and many (white) people fought tooth and nail to keep it that way.

cafard 3y ago

Should its own rulings be as binding? Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896.

jltsiren 3y ago
Of course. The job of the judiciary branch is to establish what the laws actually mean. If people don't like the decisions, the right process is telling the legislative branch to change the laws.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  The actual process is to appoint new SCOTUS judges and they just re-interpret the meaning to your liking. No legislation required.
  - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
    Works out well for the legislature too. Plenty of topics to campaign on. Plenty of chance to grandstand on social media, in hearings, in the regular media. Get re-elected while solving no problems. "Half" the population will always vote for you because the alternative is socialist/fascist. It's a version of the lazy google engineer [1] that makes less money but has potential for national fame and maybe some insider trading. If the legislature was getting screwed by this arrangement there would be a lot less deadlock in congress and the power of the judicial branch would be relatively less. And somehow this take is somehow less cynical then yours? What a world we live in. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2JaAnMMo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2JaAnMMo0

paulddraper 3y ago

You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism > Originalism is a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and instead favor modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment. > Proponents of originalism argue that originalism was the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence. Note that this philosophy -- for better or worse -- runs counter to many modern rulings of courts. Example of decisions that differed from accepted understanding of the Constitution+Amendments at time of ratification: * Gideon v Wainwright * Lemon v Kurtzman * Roe v Wade * Obergefell v Hodges

lisper 3y ago
Brown v Board of Education
- paulddraper 3y ago
  No, not really. It was not universally believed that public school segregation was compatible with the 14th Amendment when it was ratified. Originalists may have something to say about the legal reasoning in the opinion, but Brown's victory itself is not a counterexample. I've never heard an originalist say anything but that Brown v Board conformed to the original meaning of the 14th amendment.
  - lisper 3y ago
    That's because modern originalists are embarrassed by this, because it starkly reveals how untenable originalism is. But it's a fact. Look up George Wallace some time. Segregation and Jim Crow were the law of the land for 100 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, and many (white) people fought tooth and nail to keep it that way.