Here’s an idea for a conspiracy-thriller novel: secret documents are discovered that show that back in the 1930s, President Roosevelt had FBI director J. Edgar Hoover compile blackmail files on the Supreme Court justices. Roosevelt then strongly suggested to the Supremes that they find whatever legalistic interpretation is necessary to dismiss challenges to New Deal legislation. The Supremes comply and the result is the modern interpretation of broad federal power rather than the narrow federalist view that had previously held sway. The uncovered documents have the power to call into question the very basis of most of the Federal government’s current authority.
My question is, what would really be the result of such a scenerio? Would decades of precedent be tossed out, would the rulings stand, or would they be open to revision on a case-by-case basis as challenges arose?
The Court’s rulings are always open to challenge on a case-by-case basis. All of those Justices are long gone, and their replacements have long since ratified or repudiated their decisions, presumably on some independent legal basis.
Discovering corruption by a judge would generally entitle specific parties that appeared before him or her to a new hearing or trial, but it wouldn’t contaminate all legal reasoning used by that judge.
I would contend that this did happen but with the court packing scheme essentially saying vote my way or be effectively fired. Witness the state of the ICC interpretation today. Your couch crossed state line therefore the Feds control your house with no movement to move it back to its pre New Deal status.
People somehow have a belief that is some irregularity is found with a Election or a Constitutional Amendment or whatever, that all the actions done by that Official or under the color of that law would be undone.
Not so.
Once that Official is sworn in or the bill is certified and signed, it’s part of the law, no matter what is found out later.