> That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down.
With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
> > this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon
> This is an absurd take.
Indeed, OP overstated the reality. If the SC rules all day every day to reduce federal power, it would never be able to keep up with Federal power expansion.
> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions
Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule.
The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I fully expect this same behavior to continue.
> The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law.
I agree that many Supreme Court decisions do do this. And I think that two of those are Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So I think the Court overturning those decisions would be a good thing, as it would send a signal that the Court is willing to back off from expressing political views as law and try to return to its proper function.
> Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea.
Perhaps, if there is no 75% majority of opinions at the supreme court, then the case is just put on hold indefinitely until new clarifying laws are passed?
> 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.
> If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
This was actually part of the issue:
> After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
For way too long the entire political argument in the US on way too many things has been punted to the Supremes to let the elected officials get out of any responsibility whatsoever.
> If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it.
I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law is fixed. I just find this current angle of attack really disheartening and insincere, but the law is about making a persuasive case to the appropriate audience, at the appropriate time. The Court hears lots of things that I'd argue it has no business in hearing, but that is its prerogative and what it chooses to hear depends on the the makeup of the Court at the time the case is presented.
This case is a vehicle for the Alliance Defending Freedom to use to further their goals because they believe the Court will rule in a way that is sympathetic to their cause. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. I'm not judging them for doing that, it's the nature of the game. The legal argument they're making for it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases.
The SCOTUS is 9 people in a conference room deciding what cases to hear. Of course, it's not _that_ simplistic, but there isn't some state machine here that determines ripeness, mootness, etc. Everyone in the court ascribes to a different jurisprudence (e.g. not everyone in the Court believes in stare decisis, not everyone cares for originalism, etc) and everyone has different motivations. Cases are selected in the pursuit of those goals by whatever happens to be the majority.
I personally dislike the increasing use of the Court to answer what are ultimately political questions. It erodes the legitimacy of the Court and causes it to inherently appear more partisan as it takes on divisive cases.
>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.
Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think this is going to get shut down quickly?
> If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government
Let's take that as true, 'cause I agree
> so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up.
No. The supreme court should have continued to observe the constitution and told Congress that they needed to propose some amendments. If there was a need for them, they'd happen, just like they have in the past.
> But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.
This is the only statement in your take that I disagree with. In the checks and balances system, the supreme court is exactly supposed to protect the balance between federal, state, and individual rights.
One consistent court might have protected gun rights and abortion rights this week. Another might have permitted restrictions on both. Instead we got gun rights and body control. The apolitical ship has sailed.
> Nothing in the constitution grants the supreme court this power.
Doesn’t matter. They have this power, in actually existing reality.
> Theoretically, congress could act to limit the purview of the supreme court at any time.
Sure, they could try. And the Supreme Court would strike down the law they pass. Then we’re in full-blown Venezuela-level constitutional crisis territory where nobody agrees who legitimately holds power, and it’s impossible to predict what would happen.
With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
reply