[yamtaddle]

> 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.

I never wrote "should".

The actual in-fact reality is that the court's credibility is very important, and that, as there are both legal and illegal means for the other branches to circumvent or punish them, they've repeatedly decided differently than they probably would have without that pressure and those threats.

That's how the court works. It's effectively how it has always worked. It's not apolitical (never has been), it's not immune to public opinion (never has been) and they've always relied on consent of the other branches to enforce their decrees (that fact is the very justification for why they're allowed to be so insulated from direct public input in the first place)

[EDIT] Ah, I see where you got "should". That's a paraphrase of Jefferson and Madison's opinion (among others), not mine, so take it up with them.

[Alupis]

> they've repeatedly decided differently than they probably would have without that pressure and those threats.

To quote the "Dude" (Big Lebowski reference) - that's like, your opinion, man.

Each of the recent high profile cases are clearly constitutional issues, despite the populist sentiment to the contrary. Further, for some of these issues, Congress has had the entire history of the country to set correctly - and has chosen not to.

You should be angry with you Congress people, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS doesn't get to make up laws... but somehow people have come to believe they should when it's "righteous" or "morally right". SCOTUS doesn't even consider those factors, they only consider the text itself. Congress is free to consider those factors, but doesn't...

[yamtaddle]

Look, this is super-mainstream "how the supreme court works" stuff. You can disagree but you're wrong. There's a ton of material on this, much of it's online, and a guide to the rest can be found in most any university US government course syllabus. Federalist 78's probably a decent starting point.

You're arguing with history and reality itself, not me. I dunno what to tell you.

[Alupis]

The Federalist papers were political opinions - not law, and certainly not the Constitution.

They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now.

Your entire point seems to be, some people broke the law and got away with it, therefore SCOTUS is now just a thing we sometimes pay attention to when it's convenient.

That is simply not reality. It's populist, as-of late, due to some decisions that were unpopular but Constitutional. People are largely ignorant of government and the Constitution, so it's really easy to whip people up into a frenzy over some perceived evil-doing or something.

Don't like a SCOTUS decision? Get Congress to overrule it. That's how it works - there is nothing else except crimes that sometimes go unpunished or take years to be undone.

We teach this stuff in grade school because it is, in fact, that simple.

[yamtaddle]

> They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now.

The reality we have now is that the court has never functioned the way high school civics treatments of US government describe it. Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises, which means that the popularity of its decisions and the perception that it's making fair, impartial rulings matter deeply. It is and always has been a political body, but its unique mix of weakly-accountable authoritarianism and impotence—designed that way on purpose, which is why I point you to Federalist 78 as a starting point—means it operates very differently from, expresses its political will differently than, and experiences the effects of politics differently from, the other two branches.

> That is simply not reality. It's populist, as-of late, due to some decisions that were unpopular but Constitutional.

As-of late? I've already pointed out that this has always been how it works. I'm not describing how I want it to work, I'm describing how it actually works. The court's reputation does matter. That's the only thing that keeps the other branches from ignoring it. If either party thinks they can get away with ignoring it and not lose seats, that's a terrifying place to be in as far as the health of the Republic, and that's not some idle concern. Members of government, founders, and members of the court have, variously, acknowledged this reality and acted accordingly.

> People are largely ignorant of government and the Constitution

I doubt I disagree with you about what the Constitution says on this matter, nor am I ignorant of it.

[Alupis]

> Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises

This is the point of contention. It's a modern concept, when some folks of a particular political leaning didn't get their way. Suddenly, practically overnight, SCOTUS is a politically motivated organization that must keep up with popular opinions or risk "losing power". Otherwise, they're branded as evil-doers and worse...

This is simply not how our government works (thankfully).

If it did, people would have ignored Congress and the Office of the President long ago... and we would no longer have a functioning federal government, or a country for the matter.

The idea that the Judicial Branch is beholden to popular opinion and must maintain "credibility" is something that happens to unstable governments in far away parts of the world. This is not how our system works, again... thankfully.

Just because the judicial branch moves slowly and doesn't play petty politics does not mean they are not effective. Credibility has literally nothing to do with this system - it was designed that way on purpose.

[yamtaddle]

> It's a modern concept, when some folks of a particular political leaning didn't get their way.

I've repeatedly pointed out that it's not, at all. It's been a feature of our political system from the beginning. The ideal is that it's not, but that's never actually been true. It's something that's been known as a feature of this particular arrangement of government since before the Constitution itself was written—when it was still in the planning phase.

> Credibility has literally nothing to do with this system

You keep using "literally" and it keeps making your points worse because they're literally wrong, while they might have merit as an aspiration, at least.

> Just because the judicial branch moves slowly and doesn't play petty politics does not mean they are not effective.

Like... they totally do play petty politics. Again, read any history of the court, it'll be pretty clear that they always have. It'd be kinda weird if they didn't, when you think about it. It's just a bunch of people, after all, as was (again) repeatedly pointed out by various founders.