Chief Justice John Roberts issued a defense Tuesday of judicial independence, which he said is under threat from intimidation, disinformation and the prospect of public officials defying court orders.
Our constitution is fine. On its surface, it works surprisingly well for a document written a quarter of a millennium ago by people who couldn’t fathom what society would be two centuries later. If we were to write a new Constitution today, the people of the year 2275 would probably have similar criticisms since there’s no way for us to know how society will develop and what the people of 2275 will need. Doesn’t mean that the people who wrote it were bad, or there’s a problem with the document. It just means that the people who wrote it aren’t clairvoyant.
The biggest flaw with the Constitution is that it was written under the assumption that our elected officials would put their personal opinions and differences aside and sincerely work for what’s best for the American people. Corruption seemingly did not exist in their minds, and the Constitution doesn’t give any guidance about what to do if and when power falls into corrupt hands.
That said, even if the Constitution did give Congress a way to override Supreme Court rulings, our system of tribal politics would have long since perverted it. Especially these days, where even acknowledgement that the other side may even have a point is worthy of excommunication from the party. If a simple majority could override a SC ruling, then the majority would simply spend their time overriding a bunch of old SC rulings they don’t like, rendering the SC essentially toothless. If it required a supermajority (60%, 75%, whatever), there’s no way you’d get either party to override rulings made by a Supreme Court controlled by their own party. It just wouldn’t happen, to the point where the rule may as well not exist and we’d be in the same situation we’re in now.
Congress being largely unable to interfere in Supreme Court decisions is what (in theory, if not in practice) keeps the Supreme Court an independent branch of government and not just a lap dog of the legislative and/or executive branch. The problem is that that independence means the Supreme Court could just decide that it wants to be a lap dog anyway.
Our constitution is fine. On its surface, it works surprisingly well for a document written a quarter of a millennium ago by people who couldn’t fathom what society would be two centuries later. If we were to write a new Constitution today, the people of the year 2275 would probably have similar criticisms since there’s no way for us to know how society will develop and what the people of 2275 will need. Doesn’t mean that the people who wrote it were bad, or there’s a problem with the document. It just means that the people who wrote it aren’t clairvoyant.
The biggest flaw with the Constitution is that it was written under the assumption that our elected officials would put their personal opinions and differences aside and sincerely work for what’s best for the American people. Corruption seemingly did not exist in their minds, and the Constitution doesn’t give any guidance about what to do if and when power falls into corrupt hands.
That said, even if the Constitution did give Congress a way to override Supreme Court rulings, our system of tribal politics would have long since perverted it. Especially these days, where even acknowledgement that the other side may even have a point is worthy of excommunication from the party. If a simple majority could override a SC ruling, then the majority would simply spend their time overriding a bunch of old SC rulings they don’t like, rendering the SC essentially toothless. If it required a supermajority (60%, 75%, whatever), there’s no way you’d get either party to override rulings made by a Supreme Court controlled by their own party. It just wouldn’t happen, to the point where the rule may as well not exist and we’d be in the same situation we’re in now.
Congress being largely unable to interfere in Supreme Court decisions is what (in theory, if not in practice) keeps the Supreme Court an independent branch of government and not just a lap dog of the legislative and/or executive branch. The problem is that that independence means the Supreme Court could just decide that it wants to be a lap dog anyway.