The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says?

Judges adjudicate legal disputes. They can't change the constitution.

 

Now you are just playing word games. They rule based on their interpretation of the Constitution, so the outcome is what they say it is.

 

At this point I thought I'd throw in the famous anecdote about umpires in baseball. As the saying goes, "umpires are not always right, but they are never wrong." Of course, the saying was popularized before instant replay.

 

Yes, the outcome of their adjudication is what they say it is.

But their rulings have no effect on the actual constitution.

 

Theirs are the only opinions that matter.

 

In any particular adjudication.

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
Their view of the Constitution is binding.

 

In any case they choose to take.

 

In any particular adjudication.

 

Yes, in any particular adjudication brought before them.

 

In any case they choose to take.

 

Their rulings may be as broad or narrow as they wish.

 

Activist judges and and activist Supreme Court Justices don't think of what they're doing as "wrong"... they seek to "control the narrative" by "controlling the language".

Amending the Constitution is a laborious, lengthy process, fraught with politics, 'situation-ethics', and other difficulties. By contrast, it's much easier and quicker for some judge to simply issue an edict, often based on little or nothing but personal preferences or biases, and, LIKE MAGIC, everything changes!

Doubt it? Perfect example (among many): Judge Richard Kramer single-handedly struck down California's Proposition 22, approved by a majority of voters in that state. Everything else notwithstanding, we see that the 'will of the people' can, and often is, pushed aside by a single judge.

Link: https://baptistnews.com/article/california-judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/

 

Vermeule’s proposal is at odds with the Founders’ design first in endorsing the idea that judges are free to choose and to change how they interpret the Constitution at any given time. His proposal brings to mind the famous statement by Governor (later Associate Justice and then Chief Justice) Charles Evans Hughes that while “we are under a Constitution, the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”5 This may be an observation about how things currently work from time to time; for Vermeule, it describes how things should work. The conflict between this view and the system of government that America’s Founders designed cannot be overstated.

This is a republic in which, as Founder James Wilson explained, the people are “masters of the government.”6 The people assert that mastery directly through a written Constitution that sets rules for government. As the Supreme Court recognized in Marbury v. Madison, “courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”7 It should not need saying, but judges cannot be bound by an instrument whose meaning they control. In a 1795 decision, the Supreme Court asked “What is a Constitution?” The answer, the Court said, is that the Constitution is “fixed and certain; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land.” As such, the Constitution “can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.”8 Altering the Constitution by changing its meaning—what Justice George Sutherland would later call “amendment under the guise of interpretation”9 —violates this principle.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/LM262.pdf

 

Yes, in any particular adjudication they may consider any factor they desire. The phase of the moon, for instance.

 

Jurisprudence as it interacted with 'settled' principles and the letter-of-the-law was handled in much the same way in the Third Reich! One judge could 'rule from the bench' and change everything, according to that one judge's personal whims and biases. And no one was better at leveraging this power than German jurist, Roland Freisler!

. The masters of "rule from the bench"....

 

As the power of impeachment for such bizarre rulings lies with Congress some justices may feel confident in invoking lunar cycles if Dear Leader approves.

 

I know you posted this argument before, and as another poster said, the Supreme Court has not ruled on that, have they?

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the US Constitution. This is what Justice Scalia said when speaking about the US Constitution and the role of the US Supreme Court. That is how the Supreme Court interprets Article III, section I. As Scalia said to Princeton

the problem in our society today is that we are a very litigious society. As Scalia said, pass a law and go from there and do it the right way.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2001/02/24/justice-scalia-speaks-constitutional-interpretation

 

No, it's not. The role of the judiciary is to adjudicate disputes between parties.

 

Thanks. I read the article, and the Supreme Court will not hear this case because it is not in their Stare Decisis doctrine. This petition ignored the Presidential Succession Act, ignored the Electoral Count Act of 1877 and the certification of the results from January 2021 after the attempted insurrection failed. They even promised "bloodshed on the streets if DJT is not reinstated," and thankfully a few protests, but no riots or insurrections, thankfully. If you look at the history of this case, they were denied in the trial court, denied in the appellate court, and denied in the Supreme Court, twice. This is beyond a trifecta here.

 

And how do they do that, by interpreting the US Constitution when they hear a case. The Supreme Court generally hears the constitutional matter, or the Constitutional Question of the case after it has been through a federal trial court and an appellate court and may have originated in state courts. It's original jurisdiction can include states against the federal government or cases involving all cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. In this type of case, the decision by the Supreme Court is final. To give you an idea, some 7000 petitions annually are filed with the Supreme Court. around two hundred or so are accepted by the Supreme Court. About one to five per term in that 200 or so accepted by SCOTUS involves the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. But if it is deciding a Constitutional question, it interprets the facts of the case, the Constitution, and renders its verdict.

 

How they do it is of no concern. They could do it by looking at the intestines of a goat. Their decisions do not change the constitution.

 

They don't change the Constitution. They interpret the US Constitition. Some use textualism. Some use originalism. Some use other methods. But the final result is interpretation. And what you are doing is none of these things.

I think you are posting this argument because you agree with the Alabama legislature to ignore the Supreme Court's decision in that lawsuit and thus still make an extreme gerrymandering case when it finalizes its congressional districts in order for the GOP in the state to keep and hold onto power.

 

Whatever justification they use is only pertinent to the particular case they are adjudicating. It doesn't change the constitution.

Do you? Fascinating.

 

I never said they did, but if they interpret the Constititon one way, as with the case in your OP, then that is how they decided. They didn't change the US Constittion in that case, did they.

What you are arguing is that basically you believe the regulatory powers of commerce among the states should be more limited. That is your interpretation is it not? The Supreme Court ruled differently by expanding the regulatory powers to include agriculture among the several states and the act in which the law was passed Constitutionally.

A law passed Constituitonally is one where both chambers vote to approve the law and the President Signs that into law does it not?