Is the Supreme Court the American version of an infallible Pope?
Papal Infallibility doesn’t mean what most people think it means. IIUC, popes rarely speak ex cathedra and many have gone their entire papal reign without doing so.
Whereas Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, but can and do get reversed, often have dissenting opinions included, and in some cases have no enforcement mechanism ( “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”)
So, no, not really an apt comparison.
Supreme Court don’t got funny hats.
Yet.
IANAC, bu it’s my understanding that papal infallibility essentially means that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine, God will not permit him to speak incorrectly.
In that sense, I think the comparison is somewhat valid - since the role of the judiciary in the American legal system is to interpret the law, the Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to be “wrong” on matters relating to what the law is.
Nah – we’ve got a couple of rapists on the Supreme Court, but no pedophiles (AFAIK).
I guess we have God to thank for that.
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
Justice Robert Jackson
What, if anything, would be the equivalent to a “Constitutional Amendment” in the Catholic Church? In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court handed down a decision relating to income taxes. Pollock wasn’t a matter of statutory construction, but of constitutional interpretation–the closest equivalent there is in the American legal system to a Pope speaking ex cathedra. But Congress and the states directly and explicitly overruled SCOTUS with the Sixteenth Amendment . (And the Sixteenth Amendment could itself be explicitly repealed by some future Congress and future collection of states, if enough people wanted to do so.)
I’m not familiar with canon law, and I honestly don’t know if there’s anything–an ecumenical council, maybe?–which could similarly overrule a papal teaching that is made ex cathedra.
Not even funny wigs? Lame…
Well said.
Subject, as @Telemark already mentioned above, to the limitation that they are only final on this case. A later case may well overturn the so-called finality of today.
Back to the OP, I suppose the comparison has a certain poetic or metaphorical validity. Major pronouncements are made on major questions of often abstract nature using difficult to follow logic of great complexity and subtlety. Pronouncements from which there is no further appeal to alternate authority.
But as others have said above, the comparison doesn’t withstand strict scrutiny.
Cite, please.
What, you think there are pedophiles in the SC?
Ha Ha. Where’s the cite for rapists on the Supreme Court?
Kavanaugh, and harassment by Thomas
So no cite. Your “opinion” will taken for what it’s worth.
denial of course
The pope is only infallible by the ruling of the First Vatican Council that it had always been so. A future ruling that it had not always been so would allow the reversal of ‘infallible’ papal rulings.
It doesn’t /have/ to be a ruling. The ruling just formalized a rule that ‘had always been there’ – that a big chunk of the church hadn’t noticed before. Even if not reversed, the ruling itself is only compelling if you accept the authority of the council. The authority of the council is only compelling if you accept certain theological points that were never universally agreed, and you accept that those points are relevant in this case. So we wind up at a position where the ruling could be ignored or overthrown by either a democratic or an autocratic process …
Of course, in common practice, precedent could just be argued down and whittled away.