• tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m not sure it can. It would be Congress and the president. The Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to overrule, that’s the whole point of the separate branches split the way they are

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        Fun fact, the Constitution doesn’t actually say that the US Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in their decision on Marbury v. Madison (1803).

        A classic example of how there’s actually no such thing as laws or rules in any objective sense, it’s just a bunch of people collectively agreeing to go along with stuff.

      • machinin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        They ruled on the interpretation of the law. Congress can pass laws to avoid different interpretations as long as they aren’t unconstitutional (which causes a problem if you have a very conservative understanding of the constitution).

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        the supreme court airbud rule: there’s no rule against it, yet. The only thing the constitution says is that there’s a supreme court and they can’t be defunded or fired easily. It doesn’t say what they do or how they do it. Congress could easily pass a law stripping the supreme court of powers or even throwing endless wrenches in the process.