your regular reminder that Judicial Review is not anywhere written in the Constitution but "participants in an insurrection are automatically barred from holding office" is.
"ah this legislative power that overrules the other branches of government is so obvious that we don't even need to write it down" is not how the rest of the constitution was drafted bsky.app/profile/aih....
Judicial review exists because if you accept that the government is obligated to abide by the highest law in the land, and that courts are the venue where legal disputes are resolved, then OF COURSE it's within the judiciary's purview to decide that a government action violates said supreme law.
You would think this would be something you might want to clarify when moving from the English legal system which lacks any written constitution whatsoever to one based on a written constitution that has supremacy over other laws but maybe they just forgot?
it wasn't like it is today though. from 1776 through most of the 19th century strong judicial review was highly controversial and contested by multiple presidents and most members of Congress
the attitude on the right is that since liberals somehow got away with the Supes not ethering away everything in the New Deal and declaring segregation un-Constitutional, forever on out *their* Supes gets to do absolutely whatever they want however they want as many times as they can
The true constitution is as follows:
1. Republicans can always tell you what to do.
2. You can never tell Republicans what to do.
Any deviation from this is of course un-American!!!
Congress: Writes a healthcare law with clear intent but arguably ambiguous legal language.
SCOTUS: Oops! No healthcare :(
Framers: [ this space intentionally left blank]
SCOTUS: This was clearly intended to give me unchecked power
It would be odd to have an involved, lengthy process for amendments when a legislative act has the same force and the amendment would just be for vibes.
It's a judicial power, not a legislative one. If the judiciary is powerless to enjoin the government from breaking the law just as it can with any other actor, the whole idea of rule of law is meaningless.
yeah, they have the power to tell the government that, but at the end of the day compliance is just as voluntary as it would be without judicial review. see: jackson, andrew.
It's constitutional for the President to add additional seats to the Supreme Court without congressional approval if the newly-packed Supreme Court says so.
For some reason the Supreme Court has looked right past the insurrection clause in the constitution. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be at risk of another Trump Presidency.
You don’t want to know how many times I’ve said some variation on “the SC is not without electoral or political power, and if they want the ability to do judicial review, they should get an amendment”. Upholding Marbury vs. Madison is just the height of hypocrisy in an “originalist” court.
Courts have the power of judicial review by virtue of the very fact that they exist. Whether a government action is compliant with the highest law of the land is a legal dispute fundamentally no different from any other, and courts are where legal disputes are resolved.
Judicial review exists because if you accept that the government is obligated to abide by the highest law in the land, and that courts are the venue where legal disputes are resolved, then OF COURSE it's within the judiciary's purview to decide that a government action violates said supreme law.
Except there are countries where it’s accepted that the government is obligated to abide by the constitution but where the courts cannot invalidate a law for being unconditional. I’ve lived in one. Judicial review doesn’t necessarily follow from the existence of a supreme law.
Parliamentary sovereignty negates the whole "government is obligated to abide by the highest law in the land" because in that case the will of Parliament is, by definition, the highest law in the land.
I’m just saying that the original claim was not correct, & I don’t believe that changes just because one can assert that a constitution doesn’t REALLY bind the legislature if courts can’t review the legislature’s assessment that a law complies with the constitution.
It’s not about parliamentary sovereignty, which is a different concept & which I agree is incompatible with a doctrine that Parliament is bound by a constitution.
(IOW, I’m not talking about the UK. I’m talking about NL.)
The Netherlands DOES have parliamentary sovereignty, because that's exactly what parliamentary sovereignty is: the doctrine that no body is competent to judge the actions of the legislature.
And in the Dutch constitution it's made explicit--unlike, say, in the UK!
The original claim was correct, because it was qualified with "if you accept that the government is subject to the highest law in the land" which does not hold when parliamentary sovereignty is an operative principle
1. I’m not talking about parliamentary sovereignty
2. It remains a fact that there are democracies that do not have a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty & do have a principle that the govt is bound by the constitution but do not have judicial review
Next you'll tell me that "The President has a free pass to break the law, in fact he is more omnipotent than post-Magna Carta royalty" isn't written in the Constitution either
as a phillies fan i desperately need biden to reclaim the mantle of Most Prominent Phillies Fan Politician, no reason the 2022 NL pennant can't be flying from the white house too
SCOTUS judges cannot be trusted to faithfully uphold the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution. They have betrayed their country, and broken their oaths of office.
The Supreme Court judges bring great shame to good citizens who once trusted them to truthfully uphold the Constitution.
Yes, I would think that if you were a justice you would rule on what the constitution actually said. If you felt the insurrection clause was problematic in some way, you might argue that an amendment should be passed to deal with whatever issue it was, but until then, you follow the constitution
