now they are not even pretending

I saw this on Metafilter today.  This ridiculous thing has eleven cosponsors!

It does lead one to the following quandary: If congress passes a law allowing it to override SCOTUS decisions, and then SCOTUS rules the law unconsititutional, can congress override the ruling?  A rational conclusion would be, “No, since the law becomes unconsititutional as soon as SCOTUS says so.  Congress cannot use it at that point.”  But these be hairy times.

In other news, I received my ACLU membership card in the mail yesterday.

Comments (5)

  1. After SCOTUS overturns it they’ll go for a constitutional amendment… 🙂 Courts, who needs them!

    I’ve been watching the news a lot lately as I recover from a cold. On one program I saw someone claim there had to be checks and balances on the courts. And it struck me as strange: The courts just get to interpret the laws, so the check/balance is not to pass laws that can suffer from multiple interpretations (as if our laws could be so simple). And if the legislature doesn’t like the courts interpretation they can always change the laws to make them more clear. I think what the person really meant was they didn’t want the legislature to have checks and balances.

    But once you have power, what can you do other than trying to get more power?

  2. jeffdav says:

    I seriously doubt it will ever pass in the Senate.

    Apparently Andrew Jackson ignored SCOTUS’s ruling the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional, and as they had no power to enforce their ruling the Trail of Tears happened anyway.

    What does guarantee of enforcement does SCOTUS have today?

  3. xymon says:

    Yeah, when courts rely on the executive branch for enforcement, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Seems like one of those grandstanding bills that hasn’t a prayer of a chance, but oh what times we live in, eh?

  4. Amused says:

    "The courts just get to interpret the laws"

    Could someone let them know that’s their job?

Skip to main content