The infallible justices
I know I promised to respond to The Mean Guy's statement about the system collapsing under its own weight. However, the impending downfall of Western civilization isn't really that important. Instead, lets talk about a theoretical legal point.
The Supreme Court is never wrong.
Ever.
Maybe you disagree with them on the Roe v. Wade. Maybe the government parcelling out land in Kelo v. City of New London is more what gets your ire up. Maybe you're upset that the Second Amendment does not protect your right to keep and bear a sawed off shotgun. Hell, maybe you're upset that you need to pay overtime to workers while they change into their protective gear.
Doesn't matter. You're wrong, they're right.
Article III Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The judicial power is the power to interpret the meanings of laws, including the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of those laws. This is written into the Constitution itself. Individuals who assert that the Supreme Court has made a decision that goes against the Constitution are arguing against themselves. The decisions of the Supreme Court are incorporated by reference into the Constitution by Article III.
The normal response to this is "Well, were they right in Dred Scott? Were they right in Plessy v. Ferguson???
Yes. They were. They were also right when they overturned those decisions. They were right in Bowers v. Hardwick, when they held that sodomy was not protected by the right to privacy, and they were right 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas, when they ruled that it is.
Being "right" as a matter of Constitutional law does not mean making the moral, ethical, desireable or even wise decision. It means making the decision that is the law going forward. The Constitution, for all of its...well...wonderfullness, is not a codification of ethical principles. It is a system of government, and should be looked at as such.
posted by Steve72 @ 4:23 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
so the supreme court is infallible in matters of US law and the pope is infallible in matters of dogma and faith. any others out there?
If the Justices ruled that there is no right to practice religion whatsoever, they would be correct?
What if they ruled that the Supreme Court is unconstitutional? What if they ruled that only the Supreme Court could create legislation?
The answer to both questions is yes. They would be correct.
The resolution at that point would be revolution, because the system had obviously failed (which was an eventuality the founders anticipated).
However, the statements, due to the nature of the Supreme Court and the situations in which it is given authority and opportunity to rule, are simply impossible to ever occur.
Ridiculous, Steve! I think common sense ought to free us from this outrageous idea. The Constitution created the Justices not the other way around. They are interpreting something that had a meaning before it was subject to them. That we are bound, systematically, to the ruling does not make the reasoning any more sound, IMO!
Read the last paragraph of the post again.
I'm asking what if it interpreted the Constitution as giving the Court a much bigger role. It couldn't be wrong, because it is infallible.
That's correct. It couldn't.
....I meant the last paragraph of the blog post, not my response.
It may be a system of government, but that does not diminish it as an ethical doctrine. Furthermore, even if it were a system of government, that doesn't mean a particular component of that system could be judged as acting poorly or wrongly. In fact, that it is a system with certain aims provides for such a critique.
could = couldn't
...And I'm not saying that the Supreme Court never acts (or rules) unethically. However, they can never make a wrong or incorrect decsion with regard to the Constitution (or Federal law). That decision may be immoral, unethical, ill-advised or just dumb...but it is never incorrect.
So they could say the Constitution gives them the power to create legislation, disband Congress, etc.?? And you're claiming that they would be correct? IMO, they have the authority to make the decision, but that does not mean they cannot make the wrong decision. Why does authority or lack thereof translate into correctness and incorrectness?
Don't expect God to come save your court. You've rejected him today, Steve.
*Moves to Kansas*
If they were placed in a situation where they were able to make such a ruling (and I would be interested to see how you could construct such a hypothetical...they can only act when there is a "case or controversy), then their interpretation of the Constitution, as the final word, would inherently be the correct one.
After the court ruled "x", the only correct answer to the question "does the Constitution say 'x'", is "yes. It does."
Because your scheme allows for no doubt of judicial reasoning, couldn't a Court write an outrageous opinion that has nothing at all to do with the case they are ruling on? Clearly, the answer is yes.
Don't spend too much time responding to my questions. I don't want to hold up progress that could be going toward new posts.
-Pat, progressive Christian fundamentalist
Hey, look at this...lol:
The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Being the official, sanctioned, most righteous blog of the man who is going to get past those pesky senators. The A Stands For Awesome
http://samuelalito.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home