5 ms·
Isn't the only reason the Supreme Court would not sustain a law is because it is unconstitutional? And otherwise their only role is to interpret laws? At least
by babyshake 2y ago
Isn't the only reason the Supreme Court would not sustain a law is because it is unconstitutional? And otherwise their only role is to interpret laws? At least that's the way it is supposed to be AFAIK.
- kergonath 2y agoBut that’s not really how it works, is it? The court is more interested in pushing an agenda than playing its role in balancing the other branches of government. It’s obvious in the way they defer to precedent when it suits them and throw it aside when it does not.
- jtbayly 2y agoNevertheless, the constitution does forbid this, and the decision is correct.
- throwup238 2y agoWhere exactly does the constitution forbid “this”?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoNo, the court can also say that two laws are inconsistent. In this case, there is a judicial ruling (Chevron) that has stood for a while, that they are saying is inconsistent with a law (the APA). The constitution is not in this ruling at all. Generally, laws override judicial rulings unless the constitution is in question.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoCan the Supreme Court ever declare two Constitutional clauses to be inconsistent?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI doubt it, but I'm sure they can "interpret" them to consistency.
- cryptonector 2y agoSometimes they get it wrong.