|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: No.
Posted: Wed May 11, 2022 at 12:21:04 am EDT (Viewed 106 times)
Reply Subj: Re: No.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2022 at 06:03:42 pm EDT (Viewed 197 times)
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.
Quote: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.
What you're stating is what ought to be. Surfer is stating what is. There's a big difference. Of course the Supreme Court can be wrong. Just look at these cases:
But even when they are wrong, Surfer is right that the wrong becomes how the law is interpreted. It's precisely because the Supreme Court has such power that Republicans choosing not to put Merrick Garland up for a vote is such a travesty as it ended up drastically imbalancing the court.
How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI