The constitution only exists as a pretext for the reactionary Supreme Court to strike down any victories achieved by the people who are foolish enough to play the bourgeoisie’s game by the bourgeoisie’s rules. You will notice that, in practice, constitutionality is never an impediment to state oppression, and throughout the vast majority of the constitutional republic’s history the Supreme Court has had no issue shit-canning the limited victories of the people by using the most contrived interpretations of its rather simple language imaginable.
Liberals venerate the Supreme Court because for a very short time in its history it rendered decisions like Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade, but if you zoom the camera out a little bit, this short period is a clear aberration to the status quo of busting unions, returning slaves to their masters, and permitting the practice of eugenics and internment.
In a democratic republic, Engels continues, “wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely”, first, by means of the “direct corruption of officials” (America); secondly, by means of an “alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange” (France and America).
The ability of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation was not created by the Constitution. It was created by precedent from Marbury vs. Madison, where certain elites took a power they didn't have to deny other elites a power they shouldn't have had. And everyone promptly just went along with it.
It's all a matter of seizing and exercising power, and whether or not there's a successful response against you.
purely a coincidence that they keep siding with the capital-owning class over the will of the people, there's no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie here
credit to PorkrollPosadist
In a democratic republic, Engels continues, “wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely”, first, by means of the “direct corruption of officials” (America); secondly, by means of an “alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange” (France and America).
The ability of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation was not created by the Constitution. It was created by precedent from Marbury vs. Madison, where certain elites took a power they didn't have to deny other elites a power they shouldn't have had. And everyone promptly just went along with it.
It's all a matter of seizing and exercising power, and whether or not there's a successful response against you.
deleted by creator
They aren't lockstep here, though -- it's a 6-3 vote with exactly who you'd expect on each side.
Lip service opposition
Its easy to dissent when you know it makes no difference.
See: Congress, the Senate, your state democratic party etc.