“My wife is fond of flying flags,” the justice wrote in a letter to members of Congress who had demanded he step down from two cases related to the Jan. 6 attack. “I am not.”
See the problem with opening that can of worms is the sheer amount of cherry picking it would open the law up to
“If the feds ain’t gonna follow Heller, I don’t see why the states should have to follow Obergefell!”
Suddenly everyone’s pointing fingers and declaring they have the right to nullify each other’s shit and basically we’ve just opened the door to having to answer questions at the very feet of the constitution to be able to even to begin to sort everything out.
Sure, like I say it would not be good in and of itself per se, but perhaps it would motivate the actual reform of the court and the way we concieve of it. There’s no real reason that it needs to be 9 wizards, or that those wizards necessarily can’t be rotated out to other courts as a matter of process. It’s far more maleable than a lot of people realize.
The SCOTUS has also not always been as influential as it is now, through our history is has been sidelined to varying degrees.
Famously, Roosevelt simply threatened to pack the court to achieve his New Deal goals and that made the SCOTUS more compliant. The judges love their power undiluted, that is one thing that can be relied on. I think a threat to disregard a ruling could be used similarly to leverage.
A more unsavory but direct example of disregard for judicial power would be Worcester v Georgia, which effectively granted sovereignty to the Cherokee nation in Georgia, in an effort to stop them being removed. Andrew Jackson simply ignored it and removed them anyway.
It is a double-edged sword, but perhaps people need to be reminded.
See the problem with opening that can of worms is the sheer amount of cherry picking it would open the law up to
“If the feds ain’t gonna follow Heller, I don’t see why the states should have to follow Obergefell!”
Suddenly everyone’s pointing fingers and declaring they have the right to nullify each other’s shit and basically we’ve just opened the door to having to answer questions at the very feet of the constitution to be able to even to begin to sort everything out.
Sure, like I say it would not be good in and of itself per se, but perhaps it would motivate the actual reform of the court and the way we concieve of it. There’s no real reason that it needs to be 9 wizards, or that those wizards necessarily can’t be rotated out to other courts as a matter of process. It’s far more maleable than a lot of people realize.
The SCOTUS has also not always been as influential as it is now, through our history is has been sidelined to varying degrees.
Famously, Roosevelt simply threatened to pack the court to achieve his New Deal goals and that made the SCOTUS more compliant. The judges love their power undiluted, that is one thing that can be relied on. I think a threat to disregard a ruling could be used similarly to leverage.
A more unsavory but direct example of disregard for judicial power would be Worcester v Georgia, which effectively granted sovereignty to the Cherokee nation in Georgia, in an effort to stop them being removed. Andrew Jackson simply ignored it and removed them anyway.
It is a double-edged sword, but perhaps people need to be reminded.