If the Supreme Court rules that whatever Trump says or does is legal, then clearly we have been wrong about what the Constitution means.
In such a circumstance, I would recommend secession and/or violent revolution.
I do not expect that scenario to happen, because precedent would strongly indicate against such, and because history suggests that Congress and the Supreme Court will not willingly give up their power to a man who wants to render them irrelevant.
Yeah. The Constitution by itself is just words on a page without the will to enforce it, and this court is full of partisans who will happily ignore it in the name of politics and hate.
At what point, if any, do you question the decisions of the Supreme Court?
All the time. Dobbs was a bad decision. Citizens United was a terrible decision that has poisoned our entire political system and made Trump possible. I understand the logic of Bush v. Gore but wish it had gone differently. Plessy and Dred Scott were horrendous. Bowers was also a bad call. I could go on.
That doesn’t mean I get to pretend that those rulings don’t exist, or that my disapproval of them makes them illegitimate, or that the principle of judicial review only applies when they make decisions I like. Acknowledging that those decisions are what they are is being a realist, not granting them moral approval, and the way to do something about it is to start winning elections so we can do something about the makeup of the Court or change the Constitution to nullify bad rulings.
You seem to think my reaction to a bad ruling is “Well, that’s the law forever now”, when in fact it’s “Well, that’s the law now, so let’s figure out what we can do about it”.
Besides ranting on a message board, what good is questioning a SCOTUS ruling? What are you going to do to change it? Create your own lawsuit to get it appealed to them?
Did anyone even read the Justice Jackson quote?
No, it means that the Supreme Court has ruled contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution is right. The Supreme Court has been shown to be wrong on many occasions.
No, they were right, until they became even more right.
Because some people have some kind of mystical reverence for the American system of “checks and balances”.
That statement is inherently self-contradictory.
That’s the problem. They keep moving right.
No. That statement merely shows that the Constitution, and its enforcement, is not built upon unerring magic.
Was the Constitution right when it said only men could vote or that states could decide whether to permit slavery and that said slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person?
Shown by who?
What is law, then, if not a form of “magic”?
Absolutely nobody…if you believe that the Supreme Court is the be all and end all when it comes to final moral and legal argument.
The Supreme Court is the be all and end all when it comes to what the Constitution means. You’re the one ascribing moral authority to them, not me.
It is an attempt, at best, to do what is right. Sometimes human beings fuck up.
No, slaves should not have counted as persons at all.
'Course, you have to understand the Three Fifths Compromise to get how wrong it was.
I am not the one ascribing absolute authority to that political body.
Me neither.
At what point do you actively fight against their ruling?
What does “actively fight against their ruling” mean? I vote for Democrats who I hope will appoint people to the Supreme Court who will rule in a way that I think would be best. Is that not enough? Do I need to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats?