[Alupis]

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. The only thing that is supposed to matter is the Constitution itself, and any amendments Congress has ratified along with case law, etc. ie. if you are upset by something SCOTUS didn't agree with you on - be mad at your Congresscritter - they are the only ones with the power to change the Constitution and law.

However, there has been a growing push among some of our population that whatever is deemed popular today should be declared constitutional. That's just not how our system works - by design and for good reason.

The founders went to great lengths to ensure a populism movement could not change our federal government on a whim.

Populism movements, often based on emotional arguments rather than reality, change too rapidly and easily to form a stable platform for a long-lived government.

The erosion of public trust in the institution that is the SCOTUS is based purely on populism movements of late. Without going into specifics - the particular issues that are said to be causing this alleged erosion of trust are simply not Constitutional issues. Yet, the people demand it be so regardless... kind of the hallmark of a modern populist movement.

[yamtaddle]

The court's been political, has been meddled with in political ways, and has had multiple important people—including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them, for basically the entire history of the country.

[Alupis]

> including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them

Completely untrue.

Not only is SCOTUS the head of one of three branches of our federal government and cannot be ignored (whatever that means) - there is an Impeachment & Removal mechanism in place for when a particular Justice does not uphold their duties.

However, not agreeing with you on some issue is certainly not a failure to uphold their duties.

[yamtaddle]

You write about application of the a law. I write about attitudes, observations, and actual history.

[Alupis]

Frankly, none of this matters for the purposes of our government and this conversation. Only the Constitution matters. SCOTUS literally cannot be "ignored" since they are the only body of government that decides what is or is not Constitutional.

[yamtaddle]

This perspective is utterly perplexing to me. The very reasoning behind allowing something as terrifying as a supreme court to exist was that its power comes entirely from the consent of the people and the other two branches. They 100% can be ignored. The executive and legislative simply don't do what they say, and poof, they're ignored. This isn't theoretical—one of their first major decisions, Marbury v Madison, was made with the expectation that if they ruled too much the "wrong" way, Madison and Jefferson were entirely willing to simply declare their decision void and ignore it. The decision may well have come out different if not for that reality (i.e. yes, they literally—literally—can be ignored).

There's the high school civics version of the court, then there's the court as it actually functions. The former has never been a close match to reality, not even in the eyes of (some of) the founders themselves.

[Alupis]

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US federal government operates.

Congress can make a new law, or ratify a Constitutional amendment. That is the only way to "ignore" a SCOTUS decision. (although that is not ignoring, that is literally how the legal process works)

The President can commit a crime and do Unconstitutional things - for which they can be removed from office (Impeachment & Removal process), and then tried for crimes.

Each of the three branches has what we call "checks & balances", ie. each branch can do something to offset the power of another branch. No branch can outright ignore another branch - they have to go through their legal processes to make changes.

What you seem to imply here is both Congress and the Executive branches should just commit more crimes because it's currently popular to do or think a certain way.

The disconnect is happening because you observe the President and Congress commit crimes regularly. The Court System does not act quickly - it can take years or decades for a case to reach SCOTUS. This is why a SCOTUS decision is so important - not only does it clarify what is or is not Constitutional/Legal, but it provides guidance for all the lower courts to provide rapid judgements. This system is slow, deliberately, to avoid rapid swings that change with political tides.

If that's a reality people want... then this country is doomed. But... in order to doom it for real, a lot of crime would need to take place at very high levels first - which would lead to a dissolution of the federal government and the United States in it's entirety.

[PuppyTailWags]

> The erosion of public trust in the institution that is the SCOTUS is based purely on populism movements of late. Without going into specifics - the particular issues that are said to be causing this alleged erosion of trust are simply not Constitutional issues.

WDYM? Is the SCOTUS hearing that new york gun law case, when the gun law itself was annulled anyways so the case is basically moot, not an issue? Or SCOTUS hearing the precursor case of limiting EPA regulation before the EPA has regulated anything? Or SCOTUS's multiple really significant decisions passed through the shadow docket, aka no reasoning provided?

This doesn't seem like people being mad because populationist reasoning. It reads like people being mad because SCOTUS is acting spuriously and is deviating from established law theory but there are no ways to hold them to account for doing so.

[Alupis]

Even if a particular law has been annulled out of fear of a SCOTUS decision - that does not mean SCOTUS should not take up the case. After all, people were harmed by the law, and the law possibly was never Constitutional in the first place.

We cannot have a system where a Federal, State or Local government passes Unconstitutional laws on purpose, oppresses a population and only repeals the law when there's a real risk of a SCOTUS decision.

States like NY and CA have a history of repealing & replacing laws (with similar but slightly different laws) just to keep SCOTUS out of things (one cannot just take a case directly to SCOTUS after all).

The EPA case was whether or not government agencies and departments have the power to make up and enforce regulations on their own. The Constitution only provides Congress with the ability to create new laws and regulations, which is why this case reached SCOTUS.

The EPA was not a target, although they were the vehicle for that case. The decision from SCOTUS provides guidance to all lower courts in the nation. The importance here, is a lower court can short-circuit a complaint based off this guidance from SCOTUS. So next time some random government agency makes up a new law and tries to enforce it - a lower court can stop it quickly instead of a case having to make its way up to SCOTUS again (because that court can reference the decision and say this is Unconstitutional - getting a case in front of SCOTUS can take years or longer).

These are exactly the types of cases SCOTUS is supposed to take, rule, and provide guidance for all of the other courts in the nation.

Populism is exactly the reason people are upset with both. "Guns are bad" and "EPA is good" are emotional, populist arguments that count on people's misunderstanding or ignorance of how government, the Constitution, law and SCOTUS are supposed to operate.

[PuppyTailWags]

Here's the thing though, both of these cases have no reason to be brought to SCOTUS because it fails to show aggrieved party or harm done. In the NY case, the law itself was already moot, and therefore the case should've been dismissed. In the EPA case, there was could be no harm done, because no regulation had passed. By this logic I should have a legal right to sue anyone due to a potential violation of any civil liberty without first proving any actual violation whatsoever... which is clearly nonsense.

SCOTUS took up both these cases for clearly political reasons as opposed to good law.