BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Proctopeo]

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

This is an honest question, not me mocking the American governmental system (which I admit I do far more than I should) :-

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, wasn't that them creating a law? Or was that them creating a universal, lasting ruling that laws against gay marriage were illegal and unconstitutional?

And what, if any, is the difference between the two?

They created a ruling, not a law, and it upholds the 14th amendment. Unlike laws, rulings can't be overturned and can't be created on a whim. This was them killing a law that violates the Constitution, and making a precedent for future cases.

[Souseiseki]

it all goes to shit when you remember that if this happened in the 19th century they'd have laughed you out of the room and told you that of course not letting gays get married doesn't violate their "rights"

[Athrax]

it all goes to shit when you remember that if this happened in the 19th century they'd have laughed you out of the room and told you that of course not letting gays get married doesn't violate their "rights"

Maybe, but in half of that century they'd have laughed you out of the room for suggesting black people could vote, so who gives a shit what they thought?

[Jamzmania]

This is an honest question, not me mocking the American governmental system (which I admit I do far more than I should) :-

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, wasn't that them creating a law? Or was that them creating a universal, lasting ruling that laws against gay marriage were illegal and unconstitutional?

And what, if any, is the difference between the two?

It's the latter. It's the formal statement that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bans on SSM are an unconstitutional form of discrimination and must be done away with. Only Congress can pass laws, but the courts have some leeway to interpret the law, though usually with precedent and as narrowly as possible

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

[Jamzmania]

it all goes to shit when you remember that if this happened in the 19th century they'd have laughed you out of the room and told you that of course not letting gays get married doesn't violate their "rights"

Maybe, but in half of that century they'd have laughed you out of the room for suggesting black people could vote, so who gives a shit what they thought?

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

[Athrax]

It's the latter. It's the formal statement that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bans on SSM are an unconstitutional form of discrimination and must be done away with. Only Congress can pass laws, but the courts have some leeway to interpret the law, though usually with precedent and as narrowly as possible

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

Listen, you don't have to sell me on the idea of wholesale Constitutional reform, but this is the system and officially this is how it works

[Vassenor]

I still can't believe people insist on trying to justify denying rights to a given group.

[Athrax]

Maybe, but in half of that century they'd have laughed you out of the room for suggesting black people could vote, so who gives a shit what they thought?

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

I don't really give a shit. This isn't the 19th century. Their opinions natter no more than anyone else's anymore. The author is quite literally dead.

[Jamzmania]

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

Listen, you don't have to sell me on the idea of wholesale Constitutional reform, but this is the system and officially this is how it works

Yes, but I'm saying that's not how it was supposed to work.

[Jamzmania]

I still can't believe people insist on trying to justify denying rights to a given group.

I can't either.

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

I don't really give a shit. This isn't the 19th century. Their opinions natter no more than anyone else's anymore. The author is quite literally dead.

That's not how law, or really any kind of writing, is supposed to work. A piece of writing means what the author meant it to mean. You might interpret it differently, but that's just you. If you want the law to be different, then pass a new law, don't try to redefine and reinterpret an old one with an already-set meaning.

[Athrax]

I still can't believe people insist on trying to justify denying rights to a given group.

I can't either.

I don't really give a shit. This isn't the 19th century. Their opinions natter no more than anyone else's anymore. The author is quite literally dead.

That's not how law, or really any kind of writing, is supposed to work. A piece of writing means what the author meant it to mean. You might interpret it differently, but that's just you. If you want the law to be different, then pass a new law, don't try to redefine and reinterpret an old one with an already-set meaning.

That's one school of thought, yes. If the judiciary, with the power vested in them by the Constitution (and judicial review was most certainly an idea supported by at least some of the Founders, since it's their idea that we use today) decides to interpret a law differently, then so be it. If you would prefer an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, support originalist judges. Personally I don't want to feel overly fettered by the opinions and morals of people long dead and living in a time when people legally owned other people. And until we can get a major reform of our Constitutional system, I'll stick with trying to run things in this way

[Jamzmania]

I can't either.


That's not how law, or really any kind of writing, is supposed to work. A piece of writing means what the author meant it to mean. You might interpret it differently, but that's just you. If you want the law to be different, then pass a new law, don't try to redefine and reinterpret an old one with an already-set meaning.

That's one school of thought, yes. If the judiciary, with the power vested in them by the Constitution (and judicial review was most certainly an idea supported by at least some of the Founders, since it's their idea that we use today) decides to interpret a law differently, then so be it. If you would prefer an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, support originalist judges. Personally I don't want to feel overly fettered by the opinions and morals of people long dead and living in a time when people legally owned other people. And until we can get a major reform of our Constitutional system, I'll stick with trying to run things in this way

I support the kinds of judges I support because I think their way of interpreting the Constitution is the only right way. Other methods are illegitimate.

It's also kind of hard to make the "people owned slaves so I don't want to listen to their opinions" argument when talking about the 14th Amendment.

[Calladan]

So, in short, the answer to my question (Does the Supreme Court of The USA make laws or not) is no one really knows and next week they could change their minds anyway so in the long run it doesn't matter?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Maybe, but in half of that century they'd have laughed you out of the room for suggesting black people could vote, so who gives a shit what they thought?

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

Hurt feelings of dead people vs. equal rights for all citizens; the eternal battle.

[Cabra West]

Maybe, but in half of that century they'd have laughed you out of the room for suggesting black people could vote, so who gives a shit what they thought?

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

As I understand, they wrote down those laws in a time when black people were property, women were not citizens with full rights, children were cheap labour... and in their view, that was utterly normal.
If you want to give them credit, give them credit for creating laws that can adapt and open up to follow social consensus on who they should actually apply to, and how.

[Salandriagado]

It's the latter. It's the formal statement that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bans on SSM are an unconstitutional form of discrimination and must be done away with. Only Congress can pass laws, but the courts have some leeway to interpret the law, though usually with precedent and as narrowly as possible

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

Who gave a shit what they wanted? What matters is what they wrote.

[Imperializt Russia]

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

Who gave a shit what they wanted? What matters is what they wrote.

Pretty sure they wanted to keep slavery on a racial basis, pretty sure that's not considered legitimate ideology these days.

[Jamzmania]

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

Who gave a shit what they wanted? What matters is what they wrote.

If you want to fully understand what they wrote you have to take into account what they meant when they wrote it.

[Salandriagado]

Who gave a shit what they wanted? What matters is what they wrote.

If you want to fully understand what they wrote you have to take into account what they meant when they wrote it.

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

[Ifreann]

Because they wrote the Goddamn laws that we are interpreting? So maybe their views should be taken into account?

Hurt feelings of dead people vs. equal rights for all citizens; the eternal battle.

Important dead people, DI! Dead rich white people!

[Minzerland II]

If you want to fully understand what they wrote you have to take into account what they meant when they wrote it.

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

Why have laws, the supreme law no less, if they're so malleable and open to interpretation? Seems like a recipe for disaster, tbh.

[Cabra West]

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

Why have laws, the supreme law no less, if they're so malleable and open to interpretation? Seems like a recipe for disaster, tbh.

So you'd prefer it if laws hadn't changed in the last 200 years? You might want to think about that for a bit longer.

[Jamzmania]

US Constitutional law is actually way off topic, so I'll just stop.

[Minzerland II]

Why have laws, the supreme law no less, if they're so malleable and open to interpretation? Seems like a recipe for disaster, tbh.

So you'd prefer it if laws hadn't changed in the last 200 years? You might want to think about that for a bit longer.

Yes! The original meaning of legislation, I think, ought to never change with time. Rewrite or amend it if necessary, but never interpret it as something it wasn't meant to be.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Your constitution permits all weapons for private ownership that have a military use. You don't enforce that.

Your constitution permits states to establish churches, just not the federal government. You made up a prohibition on that.

Your constitution prohibits basically all federal regulation and entitlement programs. You just handwaved that.

US Constitution is dead - it died long ago. The real institutional difference between the US and the UK is that the highest legislature in the UK is elected whereas in the US it is appointed.

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

The Supreme Court has the power to make laws.