The legislative branch are just cowards, period. Don’t like the way the SC has interpreted a law? No fucking problem: re-write the law. It’s LITERALLY thier fucking job.
I’ve really stopped paying close attention because it’s all bullshit, but how many supreme court decisions are based on ‘simply’ an interpretation of the law, versus using some super stretched out version of the constitution to distort the law?
Trust me, I’ve argued about whether stare decisis even has meaning in the place it’s supposed to have in law, but I think there is a difference in the course of an argument from the point of view of ‘interpreting’ a law compared to saying some other law contradicts it or does not allow it. Thus my curiosity about which tack this court of hacks is using more often.
The legislative branch are just cowards, period. Don’t like the way the SC has interpreted a law? No fucking problem: re-write the law. It’s LITERALLY thier fucking job.
The legislative branch will write the laws that their voters want. The voters that won the elections voted for Republicans, so that’s what we get.
I’ve really stopped paying close attention because it’s all bullshit, but how many supreme court decisions are based on ‘simply’ an interpretation of the law, versus using some super stretched out version of the constitution to distort the law?
there’s no difference. It’s like asking when an AI produces a hallucination - they’re all that, even the ones that are “correct”.
Law is a social creation, not some science.
Trust me, I’ve argued about whether stare decisis even has meaning in the place it’s supposed to have in law, but I think there is a difference in the course of an argument from the point of view of ‘interpreting’ a law compared to saying some other law contradicts it or does not allow it. Thus my curiosity about which tack this court of hacks is using more often.