3 ms·

The Supreme Court, the final arbiter of such regulations, disagrees. The court rulings about the law, are the actual law.

cogman10 2y ago
The Supreme court isn't though. It's only the final arbiter when congress hasn't explicitly removed that power from them. This is the supreme court claiming power to itself that it has no right to by the constitution. The supreme court, according to the article I just cited, is the final arbiter by default, but not by right. Congress can strip that right from them. This is why, for example, the supreme court does not hear military tribunal cases.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  The Supreme Court though, has the power to determine when Congress can do that, and can’t do that. In other words, the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. So it’s kind of a moot point. Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. Not really. Congress can, for example, impeach 1 or all of the supreme court justices. The supreme court cannot stop themselves from being removed from the court. They can claim authority and that they have the right to do that, but they are not above congress, they are coequal. > Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota). Agreed, ultimately the ball is in congress's court (which they will most certainly drop). Congress could decide that this is the supreme court taking too much power and remove them all, but they aren't going to do that because this is likely a decision most representatives are perfectly fine with. So nothing will likely happen here. I'm just saying that this decision is one that the court never should have heard, not that practically they have heard it, and their enforcement is likely to stand.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      I’m not saying that. I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said they couldn’t. Even though there are constitutional restrictions to when Congress can make such exemptions, and the SCOTUS can rule on them as they please (in practice). Your argument to the contrary is about as interesting as Soverign Citizen understandings of law. I suppose we’re still ruled by George III and have been in a 248-year state of rebellion.

cogman10 2y ago

The Supreme court isn't though. It's only the final arbiter when congress hasn't explicitly removed that power from them. This is the supreme court claiming power to itself that it has no right to by the constitution. The supreme court, according to the article I just cited, is the final arbiter by default, but not by right. Congress can strip that right from them. This is why, for example, the supreme court does not hear military tribunal cases.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
The Supreme Court though, has the power to determine when Congress can do that, and can’t do that. In other words, the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. So it’s kind of a moot point. Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).
- cogman10 2y ago
  > the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. Not really. Congress can, for example, impeach 1 or all of the supreme court justices. The supreme court cannot stop themselves from being removed from the court. They can claim authority and that they have the right to do that, but they are not above congress, they are coequal. > Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota). Agreed, ultimately the ball is in congress's court (which they will most certainly drop). Congress could decide that this is the supreme court taking too much power and remove them all, but they aren't going to do that because this is likely a decision most representatives are perfectly fine with. So nothing will likely happen here. I'm just saying that this decision is one that the court never should have heard, not that practically they have heard it, and their enforcement is likely to stand.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I’m not saying that. I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said they couldn’t. Even though there are constitutional restrictions to when Congress can make such exemptions, and the SCOTUS can rule on them as they please (in practice). Your argument to the contrary is about as interesting as Soverign Citizen understandings of law. I suppose we’re still ruled by George III and have been in a 248-year state of rebellion.