• Zron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The court gave the court that authority.

    When you think about it, the court itself has been unconstitutional since 1803 when they decided for themselves that they had the authority to decide what is and isn’t constitutional. Marbury V Madison is the case that “gave” the court the power of judicial review. A power that is not enumerated in the constitution whatsoever, and was entirely made up by the Supreme Court.

    Judicial review is a bullshit system and should have been struck down with an act of congress immediately. Unfortunately, Americans have apparently always been lazy, and delegating constitutional questions to the court was seen as easier than making amendments all the time.

    In short: sack the court and start again. Create a new entity for making constitutional interpretations, and make SCOTUS back into what it was supposed to be: the final court of appeals for the judicial system.

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Then what would stop Congress from creating blatantly unconstitutional laws? Getting rid of judicial review sounds like a good idea now because the court is run by fascists, but I’m not convinced that getting rid of it entirely would make things better.

      I think judicial review needs some serious revision and way to check against its power, but getting rid of it completely makes the legislature too powerful.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To quote myself “create a new entity that is responsible for constitutional interpretation”

        Preferably these would be elected positions under the legislative branch with a formal code of ethics and terms limits. If a position is going to change the interpretation of laws, it should fall under the preview of law makers.

        Judicial review has been used, and is fundamentally the power, to legislate from the bench. The duty of a court is to decide how laws are to be executed, not to decide what those laws mean. The meaning of the law is up to congress, and the enforcement of the law is up to the executive branch. The court is merely there to decide when those laws have been breached and what punishment that entity deserves, if any.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is this far right? The right loves the current court, it’s their personal sledgehammer they can pull out to erode our freedoms whenever they wish.

        Just because something had been done for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

        For a long time, the west had kings as governments. We fought a war to get rid of that. The French started cutting off heads to end that.

        For a long time, the church was a key government entity, our constitution explicitly states that the government is entirely separate to the church.

        For a long time, common people had no rights to trial by peers or privacy in their own homes from the government. Again, we have an amendment that enshrines that.

        The Supreme Court has been abusing their power too much and for too long. It needs to change, and one those changes should be to judicial review. No more legislation from the bench.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            everything I don’t personally agree with is a far right position

            Okay bud. I see I’m dealing with a highly intelligent being. After all, we definitely have a tripartite government when we have a legislative branch that makes laws and an unelected judicial branch that… also makes laws by deciding what is and isn’t constitutional and what rights are and aren’t protected by the constitution.

            Yup, sure sounds like a totally fair and balanced system of government that definitely doesn’t need a major overhaul and sever limits places on it by the other branches.

            But I guess actually wanting checks and balances is a far right position, so, according to you, shouldn’t be done.