[mindslight]

So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.

[jessedhillon]

The personal opinions of private citizens are not binding whereas judgments are. Ergo, opaque blob or not, unelected and unappointed citizens don't get to pass binding interpretations of the Constitution. Everyone has an opinion, but only specific people are empowered to enforce their interpretations and the rest of us agree to limit us only democratic channels to influence that mechanism. That is the rule of law.

If you have some alternate proposal whereby it can be determined whether or not the Constitution is being followed, I'm happy to hear it. So far you have not even demonstrated that you understand the meaning of the word "constitutional," as you declared unconstitutional a mechanism which is literally specified in the Constitution, so I am dubious of any system which would elevate the opinion of any random person to the level that it would be constitutionally binding. We already have a system for assessing the will of the majority.

[mpyne]

You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.

[mindslight]

Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).

[mpyne]

> The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction

I think you're talking past each other.

Obviously the Supreme Court can get decisions wrong (not just "the context was different then" but actually wrong; e.g. Dred Scott).

But the point is that for the purposes of the government and of the law there is no higher arbiter than the Supreme Court so if they get a Constitutional interpretation "wrong" in your humble opinion then it still won't matter that you or anyone else disagrees; in the interim the government and the courts will use the new precedent.

Saying in essence that "other people can have their own opinions about the Constitutionality of a Supreme Court decision is tautologically true; how can it add to a discussion? You might as well mention that water is wet. For that reason it's easy for other people viewing that comment to believe you meant something else entirely...

[jessedhillon]

The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction...

That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.

[mindslight]

Whoosh. You're doing the equivalent of conflating legality and morality - separate your perspective from than of USG. The point isn't that an arbitrary person's opinion of constitutionality directs the actions of USG. It's that there's an independent notion of constitutionality outside the opinions of the Supreme Council. By acknowledging this divergence, we illustrate one aspect USG's corruption (and gain insight to how it occurred) and can weigh whether it is time to reboot the failed system by external means.

[jessedhillon]

You began this discussion by saying that a Supreme Court decision can be unconstitutional -- practically a contradiction in terms, and also legal statement. Now you're trying to switch subjects and say you were talking about morality the whole time? Morality is utterly irrelevant and subjective. I don't care about what you think is moral, that's why we have a Constitution in the first place: so we don't have to pick which moral code to observe!

[mindslight]

No, I began by saying that the SC can declare something "constitutional" when it (the "something") is obviously not.

(Funnily enough, I was implying that your original judgment of constitutionality was irrelevant as to what could happen. A point which you then went on to make hard about others' judgments of constitutionality, but mostly restricted to post-SC-decision disagreement)

I said nothing about morality specifically, just that the phenomenon of conflating it with legality is an analog of what you seem to be doing: assuming that the truth of something (in this case: "constitutionality") is fully captured by how the government judges it.

[dragonwriter]

> If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution.

Or just ignore it. While I can't recall an example of this by the executive branch at the Supreme Court level, its certainly happened with lower federal court orders (e.g., the Lincoln administration's first set of suspensions of habeas corpus and the rulings invalidating them), and there is nothing magical about the Supreme Court that makes it any less possible for their decisions.