Ruling that something is true does not make it true
That is EXACTLY what it means.
Quote:The case I mentioned before form 1803... Maybury v. Madison, is what established the Supreme Court's role as interrupting the Constitution.
Quote:That means what ever they ruling is legal reality. Whether it is good or bad, it is legal reality.
Quote:Since the legal system is based on the conpet of precident, especially when applied to the highest court in the land.
What you're saying is that the Supreme Court has the unassailable prerogative to rule however they want on whatever they want, with no restrictive principle of any kind, and with no way to ever be in error. Consider what that could mean in practice. Your argument transforms these nine individuals into gods.
It has to be possible for us to tell SCOTUS they're wrong. There has to be a restrictive principle by which we can identify error. We can't allow stare decisis
to eternally enshrine the arbitrary whims of nine masters of the universe. They have to be accountable to some principle, and it can't be simply stare decisis
, because that would mean they're accountable ONLY to their previous arbitrary whims.
It isn't in the Constitution. The power itself was asserted by the Courts. I'm not saying the judicial branch should be ignored, but let's get real, they're interpretations are as good as their enforcement, and political pressure from the other branches has historically been a check on their behavior. Whether it was Jackson literally saying, to paraphrase, "they can rule how they like, let see them enforce it," or FDR threatening to pack the Court. Deifying the SCOTUS helps no one in my opinion. As the least democratically accountable branch, I'm all to happy to see them undermined, packed out of relevance, and generally whipped into shape.
---the late great Donald Blake