Vox: The Case for Abolishing the Supreme Court

So they want a Republic run by diktat?

What could go wrong?

quote:

---

So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional.

---

Um, OK. So what happens when the majority of the population/congress passes a law which unconstitutionally oppresses the minority?

Do so-called "professors of law" even read the Federalist Papers anymore?

ETA: This interview is disturbing...

quote:

---

Sean Illing: I’m tempted to ask for examples of bad decisions, but let’s focus on the case for abolishing the Supreme Court, or at the very least for abolishing judicial review, which is the Court’s ability to decide whether a law by the government is constitutional.

Mark Tushnet: There are two components of the case for getting rid of judicial review. One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say “no.” So from a democratic point of view, it’s hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose. The second component is that judicial review may actually impair the public’s ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means, and what we want to do in light of what we think our Constitution says. In a way, the Supreme Court simply takes on this conversation for itself, and leaves the citizenry as bystanders.

---

The guy making this argument has absolutely no clue as to the tyrannical depths into which human nature can descend if left unchecked.

quote:

---

So what happens when the majority of the population/congress passes a law which unconstitutionally oppresses the minority?

---

They are too busy suppressing free speech and forcing their viewpoints into an unwilling populace to worry about that.

quote:

---

We’ve had the Brown v. Board of Education decision and Roe v. Wade, and then, more recently, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage — and all of these decisions were empowering for different segments of the population.

The big question is whether the gains from those kinds of protections of minority interests are substantial enough to outweigh the Court’s interference with legislation on behalf of the most powerful elements of our society. If you’re focused on many recent decisions, like Citizens United, the Court certainly seems to be favoring corporate power, but the picture is less clear when you step back and evaluate it over a much longer period of time.

---

What a ridiculous sentiment. So when the Court protects private entities from government oppression in Brown, Roe, and Obgerfell, it's good. But when the Court protects private entities from government oppression in Citizens United, it's bad?

There has to be a final authority

Do these morons realize the only thing saving them from being strung up are the laws us "nazis" abide by?

quote:

---

First, the electoral college
Next, gerrymandering (which they started)
Now, supreme court

This is what happens when you're a sore loser.

---

I read an article the other day, I think from either Vox or the Atlantic, about how Mitch McConnell is destroying the Senate by being so partisan in regards to judicial nominations. It was written by someone who was a staffer for Harry Reid.

I don't know if they realize how ridiculous they sound and are only saying the things they do for political gain or if they are truly NPCs and believe what they say.

The article, if you read it, makes good points. We have always had a debate in this country over how powerful the high court should be in shaping our laws. It goes back to the founding. People like Hamilton welcomed judicial review while guys like Jefferson were not fans of the courts being able to dictate policy (Jefferson made this clear in his writings). So from the outset, we've had this debate. Indeed, judicial review wasn't even a thing until years after the constitution was ratified. It wasn't until 1803 that the court asserted this power.

The law professor interviewed in the Vox piece is an advocate of the so-called "dialogic" approach used in some other countries. That is where the courts and the legislature work together. The courts act in an advisory role explaining why a law may or may not be constitutional. The legislature takes it into consideration but ultimately has the power to pass a law regardless of what the court says. According to this professor, Robert Bork and other conservative judges also advocate for the dialogic approach.

Whatever the case, there are arguments for both sides. Conservatives and liberals both love the dialogic approach when it suits their policies. Likewise, both love it when the courts step in and strike down a law they hate. Ultimately people are going to advocate for a system that is most likely to allow them to implement their own agenda. Whatever is best for abortion, gays, and socialism is what liberals will advocate for. Whatever is best for individual freedom is what conservatives will advocate for.

The best system would be a court that vows to uphold the constitution and strike any law not in harmony with it (whether the individual judge liked the law or not). Unfortunately this doesn't happen as Thomas Jefferson predicted with the following quote:

quote:

---

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

---

-- Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

There has to be a final authority

---

Look at bmy turning over a new leaf by not being the contrarian-at-all-cost. Intellectual honesty is nice for a change, may you be freed from your cage and finally "woke?"