> In a broader sense, however, today’s ruling is of a piece with this Court’s recent tendencies. “[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints,” the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules.[6] We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
For clarity, this excerpt is from the opinion of Justice Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The excerpt is from page 17 of that opinion, which is page 32 of the pdf linked in the parent comment.
Well when the highest court in the US does the exact opposite of what the Constitution says, breaking every law, then other judges will follow. This no rule of law.
One possible example, Texas is now redistricting in the middle of the decade to remove some congress people to give the GOP more seats. California started doing the same to offset Texas. You can bet if this redistricting gets to the Supreme Court, Texas will be allowed to continue, Calif. will be banned.
Everyone in the US knows that will happen. So this is on Roberts, allowing this court to do what it wants, not what is legal.
From a recent dissent (p. 17):
> In a broader sense, however, today’s ruling is of a piece with this Court’s recent tendencies. “[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints,” the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules.[6] We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
* https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf
For clarity, this excerpt is from the opinion of Justice Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The excerpt is from page 17 of that opinion, which is page 32 of the pdf linked in the parent comment.
Well when the highest court in the US does the exact opposite of what the Constitution says, breaking every law, then other judges will follow. This no rule of law.
One possible example, Texas is now redistricting in the middle of the decade to remove some congress people to give the GOP more seats. California started doing the same to offset Texas. You can bet if this redistricting gets to the Supreme Court, Texas will be allowed to continue, Calif. will be banned.
Everyone in the US knows that will happen. So this is on Roberts, allowing this court to do what it wants, not what is legal.
Most people are not good enough for a free country, liberty & justice for all, etc.
The call to bring judges more to the center should have been made years ago, IMHO. The problem is on both sides of the ideological aisle.
> The problem is on both sides of the ideological aisle.
Are you fucking kidding me?