No, that is not his point. His point is, if they overide what is done legislatively, (as in, say, universal healthcare) THEN go ahead and appoint new judges.
It is not up to the judges to determine how we provide for the general welfare. It is up to the legislative body. If they can't refrain from undoing the will of the people, thru t…
No, that is not his point. His point is, if they overide what is done legislatively, (as in, say, universal healthcare) THEN go ahead and appoint new judges.
It is not up to the judges to determine how we provide for the general welfare. It is up to the legislative body. If they can't refrain from undoing the will of the people, thru their representatives, then we need to reform the court.
There are other ways to reform the court besides packing it.
I understood his point. Mine is that the "will of the people" does not always prevail. By your reasoning
(a) law = what the legislature passes (and Pres. approves),
(b) what the legislature passes = the will of the people, and
(c) the supreme court should never overturn the will of the people
Then there would be no purpose for the supreme court - as by definition all law is legitimate. What matters is not whether a law = "will-of-the-people", rather what matters is whether the law is constitutional.
I understand. But my broader point is that they justices contort themselves to find things "unconstitutional" just because they don't like the politics of the party that passed the legislation.
Obamacare was, and is, constitutional. But so many right wing judges tried their hardest to find it "unconstitutional". They also tried it to undo social security and medicare the same way.
No, that is not his point. His point is, if they overide what is done legislatively, (as in, say, universal healthcare) THEN go ahead and appoint new judges.
It is not up to the judges to determine how we provide for the general welfare. It is up to the legislative body. If they can't refrain from undoing the will of the people, thru their representatives, then we need to reform the court.
There are other ways to reform the court besides packing it.
I understood his point. Mine is that the "will of the people" does not always prevail. By your reasoning
(a) law = what the legislature passes (and Pres. approves),
(b) what the legislature passes = the will of the people, and
(c) the supreme court should never overturn the will of the people
Then there would be no purpose for the supreme court - as by definition all law is legitimate. What matters is not whether a law = "will-of-the-people", rather what matters is whether the law is constitutional.
I understand. But my broader point is that they justices contort themselves to find things "unconstitutional" just because they don't like the politics of the party that passed the legislation.
Obamacare was, and is, constitutional. But so many right wing judges tried their hardest to find it "unconstitutional". They also tried it to undo social security and medicare the same way.
That is what is wrong.