The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says?

Often when discussing the constitution, I've had people tell me that it doesn't matter what is actually written on the page, but that the only thing that matters is what the supreme court says.

So here's a question. Let's take a piece of text from the constitution:

Four years. What if the supreme court interpreted the term "year" to mean "seven million days". Would that then be the law of the land?

 

@Jack Hays, based on our discussion in another thread, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on this one?

 

Not interested. Thanks.

 

I don’t think they would interpret that in such a way as they would lose what little legitimacy that they have — but if they did who would stop them? The conservative justices have ruled that they are above the law and beyond reproach, unable to be questioned.

 

I love watching hard left whine about the supreme court when no supreme court in history was as contemptuous of the constitution as the FDR clown court 1937-1953

 

I don’t believe the Supreme’s can redefine science. Like … time … for instance.

 

Very few people have their foot so firmly planted in the grave to remember the late 30’s or early 70’s so it is pretty impactful for much of todays citizenry.

If you have to go back almost a millennia to justify something, it is likely a point that is on the wrong side of history.

 

They are stuck with 365 1/4 days unless the earth's orbit changes.

 

you either are forgetful of reality or ignore it purposely. Much of what FDR's clown court did remains around to screw up modern precedent. We wouldn't have half the problems with a bloated federal government including the idiotic war on drugs etc but for FDR's commerce clause nonsense

 

The fact that you sit here and pretend that no Democrat or liberal justice has ever done the same thing...
It betrays your obvious bias.

Just for the record of the astute reader.. could you please sit here and tell us again how you're not a liberal?

 

You can't disprove the point so you attempt to say the point is too old to bother disproving...

 

Congress can impeach and remove a justice, as they can with the president. If the court departed so fully from reality, Congress would likely remove the delusional justices.

 

Then people would ignore it. Supreme Court decisions have been ignored before.

 

Are you sure? I'm not seeing that in my copy of Article Three.

They did put the definition of treason in Article Three. I think the intent is pretty clear.

 

They impeached a justice in 1805, Samuel Chase, though he was not convicted.

 

Northern Kentucky's Law School is named after him

 

Yep, Justice Samuel Chase impeached for treason which is the only crime mentioned in Article Three of our constitution. Article three states the definition of treason, and being a partisan judge wasn't in there.

 

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

"all civil Officers" includes judges.

Additionally, aside from Samuel Chase, 14 other Federal Judges have been impeached through out our history by Congress. For things ranging from drunkenness to accepting bribes. 8 of them were convicted and removed. 3 resigned in disgrace, the other 3 were acquitted.

 

The -effect- of the constitution, especially with regard to state actions applied against rights, exists as far as its jurisprudence - the court deciding what it says, means, and,or how it does/does not apply.

 

A factually non-existent claim.

 

But, but......I thought you posted........"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

Today's SCOTUS displayed its treasonous side with the Brunson case this year.

 

It is certainly true the SC has no enforcement mechanism at their disposal if their rulings are ignored. I believe it would be up to the DoJ to enforce rulings.

 

For starters, you cannot take the Constitution in pieces to try to fit your political idealogy. Article 2 is the executive branch, with the President as head of that Executive Branch. We also have Article III, the Judicial Branch, which it pretty much establishes the judiciary, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Then you have Article VI of the US Constitution is the supremacy clause in which the US Constitution and all of its amendments are the supreme law of the land. Article III, Section I, states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This and the 11th Amendment, establishes the authority of the Supreme Court under the US Constitution. Because it is under the Constitution, then any decisions rendered by SCOTUS, as ultimate interpreters of the US Constitution, are final as if they were written in the US Constitution per the Supremacy Clause under Stare Decisis.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation01.html This is with Marbury v Madison, establishing judicial review
https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation04.html
https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation03.html

 

So, which case is that? The Brunson case was decided in 1969 in Texas Supreme Court.

If the case was about "ousting Biden," then the Supreme Court generally does not get involved and denied to hear the case. It was denied previously in Federal district courts and appellate courts as well.