Irrelevant either way, they don’t care about precedent. They do as they please with no regards for the law, and all that matters is if somebody is willing and able to stop them.
And you’re confident that’s because the law is and has always been that way, we just didn’t know until the Supreme Court discovered it for us? Like, just calling balls and strikes with no agenda influencing any of their opinions?
I mean, that’s pretty much exactly what the Supreme Court does, but I felt Colorado was overreaching before they made their ruling anyway. The existence of section 5 of the 14th amendment (The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article) indicates that the amendment was not meant to be self-executing and that Congress was responsible for legislating the process by which insurrectionists are to be disqualified.
The Supreme Court basically works on the same principle as papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine, the idea is that God will not allow him to be in error. Likewise, the Constitution does not allow for the Supreme Court to be wrong.
So… there’s no way a different supreme court made up of justices appointed by different Presidents could have “discovered” a different solution for us?
Well, sure, they could have, but they didn’t, and we need to work with the facts that we have and not the facts that we wish we had or that we might have had if different people had made the decision.
So, you think Dred Scott v. Sandford was a correct decision?
And yet you are so confident that if Trump tries anything really terrible in his second term, something “unconstitutional”, the courts will stop him? After all, how do you know if it’s unconstitutional until SCOTUS tells you so?
My god, you are so insufferably naïve.
At the time, it was. That’s why Congress passed the 13th-15th amendments in order to nullify that ruling.
That is how the Supreme Court works, yes.
I’m capable of having opinions and beliefs of my own without the Supreme Court telling me what to think. I’m also fully capable of independently looking at precedent and attempting to determine how I think the Court ought to or likely will rule.
No, it was a politically motivated ruling done to favor the cause of slavery. Just the kind of ruling you can expect Trump’s puppet judges to make. And it took a civil war to do anything about.
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
Justice Robert Jackson
And, at the time, it was an authoritative ruling on Constitutional law by the highest body capable of issuing such rulings. That’s why we had to rewrite the Constitution in order to fix it.
Only the 14th. That established birthright citizenship and established United States citizenship vs state residency which is distinct from the state citizenship in place during the time of Dred Scott.
No it wasn’t you fucking idiot! Even at the time, it was recognized as a travesty of epic proportions. Not just on moral grounds, but on constitutional (and factual) grounds. Literally all the white supremacists on the court had to do for an at least constitutionally plausible (but still abhorrent) outcome to the case was say “Sorry, you’re not a citizen, so you don’t have standing to sue, which means there is simply no case here.” That’s if they wanted to be constitutional white supremacists. Instead, they went and said “Not only are you not a citizen, but no person of African descent has ever been [false, by the way] or could ever be [by extension, also false] a citizen of any state. And even though we should just end the case right there, we’re also going to go ahead and declare the Northwest Ordinance unconstitutional and open the door for slavery to be introduced to every state in the Union just as long as we don’t end up fighting a civil war before we get a chance to rule on that case.”
Thank fucking god the south seceded when it did, or else we might be sitting here today with you explaining to me how it’s totally okay that every state in the Union is a slave state over the objections of the majority of state legislatures because that’s what the Supreme Court decided in 1862 and we’ve just got to “accept the facts” or whatever you god damn fascist bootlicker.
It was a poltical ruling by a corrupt judge attempting to reinforce slavery and do the bidding of the pro-slavery Presidential candidate. It was also more than vile enoguh that anyone would have been perfectly justified in refusing to obey it by any means up to and including lethal violence.
It was a travesty of epic proportions. It was also the supreme law of the land at the time. Both these things can be true.
“Constitutional” does not inherently equal “morally good”, or even “just” or “fair”. You are conflating “is this the law” with “do you believe this is right”. If you have an issue with the principle that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, you’re about 223 years late to the dance.
Would that be the Supreme Court that is made up of human beings, some of which whom were appointed by Donnie Trump? That Supreme Court?
I liken it to believing in the Tooth Fairy.
So literally if the Supreme Court said you are not a human being, it would be a travesty, but it would mean that’s what the constitution said?
Is there some other Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court exists whether we agree with its decisions or not, and one does not undo bad decisions by pretending they don’t exist.
At least in the eyes of the law, yes. Any recourse I could possibly seek would have to be extralegal.
You are contradicting yourself. You constantly talk about the Constitution as if it was incapable of being violated by Trump and his flunkies, but now you are admitting that his Court could just make any decision they please and the Constitution wouldn’t matter.
And that’s pretty much my point in this thread about the current Supremes turning the constitution into an irrelevant rag.