Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the wealthy conservative donor Harlan Crow’s lawyer after records showed undisclosed flights between Hawaii and New Zealand with the Supreme Court justice in 2010.

There really doesn’t seem to be any limit to the amount of bribery going on.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    402·
    3 months ago

    Or just reject judicial review. The constitution doesn’t give the supreme court the power to invalidate laws, only to be the court of last appeal for court cases.

    They just invented that power for themselves. Next time they assert that the executive branch via the EPA lacks authority to regulate the environment, just assert that you don’t accept the fabricated power they gave themselves and continue to regulate things as Congress delegated to them.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        6·
        3 months ago

        Sure there is. Someone who has been damaged by the law takes it to court, and the court decides in their favor, and the penalty for violating the law doesn’t apply to them. They don’t veto the law, they just decide the cases brought to them.
        That’s different from the judiciary having a veto power they granted themselves. They have the power to decide cases, not the power to strike down a law.

        Hell, the constitution even makes it explicit that Congress can pass a law restricting what cases can be appealed to the supreme court in the first place.
        If the constitution intended for them to decide the validity of laws, why would it include a clause allowing Congress to pass a law the supreme court can’t review?

        If they were supposed to have that power, why wasn’t it out in the constitution? Why was this check left entirely implied while the others were spelled out?
        Why did a variety of the framers of the constitution say that it was a terrible idea?

        You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. … Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

        — Thomas Jefferson

        [I]n their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.

        — a less notable constitutional delegate, but weirdly portentious, on why judicial review should not be included.

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      Then does it have the ability to decide Roe?

      I understand my question starts at the wrong point. I’m asking how far you’d extend your point.

      Because I find it interesting and perhaps feasible.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        3 months ago

        Unfortunately not in the way that they did. They would not have been able to have invalidated all laws blocking abortion, but they would be able to set precedent which held that cases involving abortion should be decided in favor of the abortion seeker.

        So they could have decided Roe, but it would have been just the case, not the constitutional question.

        This is not strictly what everyone means when they talk about ending judicial review.
        Some interpret it as “the courts can only interpret the law as written, not it’s constitutionality”.
        I disagree with that and think that the court naturally needs to be able to consider multiple laws that apply to a case, and the Constitution is one of those laws.
        It’s the “executive branch, you can’t do that” part, where they prevent the law from being enforced. The law remains the law, and the only thing the courts can do is rule on the case.

        I try to be consistent with my interpretation and extension of how things would play out, even when it’s an outcome I’m not as fond of. Worst case scenario I need to change my opinion because it leads to an outcome I find intolerable.

        In general I prefer a policy

        • APassenger@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 months ago

          I’ve been reflecting on your answer and I keep returning to one point…

          In your example the rule in favor of the abortion seeker. As a principled and partial matter, how do these differ from today?

          Is your argument that states can and maybe should keep laws around after they’ve been ruled demonstrably against the Constitution? If so, wouldn’t justice only be granted with those with the means to appeal to SCOTUS?

          Despite the possibility of tone sounding argumentative, it’s not. I think I’m missing something here and I’m trying to figure it out. Thread is old enough I suspect it’s just the two of us here anyhow.