3 ms·
That sounds equivalent to writing an unconstitutional law and tacking on “btw, you can’t rule that this law is unconstitutional”. Which is actually possible to
by bartc 2y ago
That sounds equivalent to writing an unconstitutional law and tacking on “btw, you can’t rule that this law is unconstitutional”.
Which is actually possible to do by amending the US Constitution, but good luck with that.
- mullingitover 2y agoMarbury itself has no basis in the constitution. Congress can gut the powers the courts have carved out any time, what I’m suggesting is that it can be done with a surgical strike rather than going nuclear.
- rayiner 2y agoThis is a brave comment given that we are about to get 4 more years of Trump and probably a Republican house and senate.
- cryptonector 2y agoIronically Marbury was about Congress gutting the courts. Jefferson's Congress canceled 18 federal courts, leaving 18 judges (appointed by Adams at the end of his term, and who had not yet been seated) with no court to sit in! The case was a suit to force Jefferson's Secretary of State (Madison!) to give those new judges their commission. Marbury is a fairly complex case. Anyways, Adams' 18 judges were not sat. This could happen again: just close out a bunch of judges' courts -- they'll still be judges for life, but judges without a court.
- cryptonector 2y agoYet everyone has accepted Marbury. No one questions it. The reason is that it makes sense in the context of the constitution.
- mullingitover 2y agoThis court has gone a long way to say that vibes aren’t a sufficient level of clarity anymore, so it’s only fair that this can work against the court’s allocation of power as much as it has worked for it.