While that’s true, the other two branches are routinely populated by people of wildly differing ideologies. In law, it’s the law which is supposed to be stronger as time goes on, which is why established precedent is a thing. When they reverse it, it un-does all the decisions made down the line that were based on that. Which is a huge clusterfuck and in general very expensive for everyone such that even those wrongly convicted can’t unfuck themselves without money.
The proper way to handle that is to make good law which this clown shit of a court has been very poor at doing.
In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.
A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.
True, but that’s the role of the Supreme Court. Until a successor court (presuming there is one) does that, which may not be for another decade, the lower courts will follow these horrible decisions because they are precedent even though wrongly decided.
Of course, Congress could act. But. Y’know. We can’t even elect a President much less a majority of both houses.
While that’s true, the other two branches are routinely populated by people of wildly differing ideologies. In law, it’s the law which is supposed to be stronger as time goes on, which is why established precedent is a thing. When they reverse it, it un-does all the decisions made down the line that were based on that. Which is a huge clusterfuck and in general very expensive for everyone such that even those wrongly convicted can’t unfuck themselves without money.
The proper way to handle that is to make good law which this clown shit of a court has been very poor at doing.
All the judges who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade swore that it was ‘established law.’
Yeah. They did. They should be impeached. As soon as Congress stops sniffing its own butt maybe it’ll get around to that.
In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.
A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.
True, but that’s the role of the Supreme Court. Until a successor court (presuming there is one) does that, which may not be for another decade, the lower courts will follow these horrible decisions because they are precedent even though wrongly decided.
Of course, Congress could act. But. Y’know. We can’t even elect a President much less a majority of both houses.