Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6758)	7/9/2003 8:20:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I don't know of a single constitutional amendment that was enacted specifically to overturn a SC decision. Do you? Of course not, although there have been initiatives to that effect. I imagine that if the SC did something totally outrageous as opposed to merely pushing the envelope, that an amendment could happen. It's just that the stuff we've been discussing just isn't big enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant all that fuss. We fuss about it here and the pundits fuss about it, but it really isn't a monumental question. Wait long enough and things will change again. What I do NOT accept is that the SC has the right to enact laws that the legislature has chosen not to enact. It's hard to draw a bright line between court imposed remedies or court expressed opinions and "enacting laws." If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, one that denies equal justice, the court can strike it down. If the legislature fails to protect equal justice, the court has nothing to strike down so it fills in. What should they do instead? That's a straight question.