I don't get why you don't get that it's the SC's job to tell the legislature when
they're out of line constitutionally
I get that.
But that's a very different thing from taking affirmative actions that the legislature won't take.
I agree that the SC has taken on itself (though I don't agree that the Constitution gave them the original power to) the job of telling the legislature when they have done things that five justices think are unconstitutional (even though 200+ representatives and 50+ senators DID conclude, by voting for it, that it was constitutional).
So I accept that under present law, the SC can undo acts of the legislature that it has passed.
What I do NOT accept is that the SC has the right to enact laws that the legislature has chosen not to enact. That's a very different thing, IMO. That requires political action and legislative action, which is NOT the province of the Court, IMO.
If the legislature disagrees, they
can always pass a constitutional amendment to clarify the constitution in their favor. It's not like the SC has the
absolute last word.
Actually, only the States can pass a constitutional amendment, Congress can't. Congress can propose, but the states have to enact. And the reality is that the SC does have the last word. I don't know of a single constitutional amendment that was enacted specifically to overturn a SC decision. Do you? It may be theoretically possible, but you and I both deal in the real world, not in the world of the forms. And in the real world. it's not gonna happen. |
