The liberal justice’s decision to retire after more than 27 years on the court allows President Joe Biden to appoint a successor who could serve for several decades.
Which, it cannot be said often enough or loudly enough, has no legal power determine whether laws are constitutional or not. That's just something everyone lets them do. The POTUS could ignore them at any time with no recourse or repercussions.
They claimed to have the power based on deduction from the constitution. There's no document or law that actually says they have power. They very literally just said "We have this power" and everyone rolled with it. And the times when the President said "lul fuck you you have no power" the SCOTUS just flailed and squirmed because they do not, in fact, have any actual power.
There’s no document or law that actually says they have power
ok but how is this any different from how people treat the "explicit" textual powers conveyed from a constitution, say? what document or law empowers the constitution? the document of the "Constitution" is not a source of talismanic power; it's simply one more touchstone in a sea of sources of law, others of which include the Court's decisions.
all of these can be analytically ignored, the decisions of the Court or any reading of constitutional text. their power comes from the fact that they are, mostly, respected as law, but that need not be the case, just as american's no longer respect english parliment as sovereign.
You're right in the sense that it's all just handshake agreements and norms. I just think it's notworthy that the branch of government that nominally has veto powers on all laws doesn't actually derive that power from anything stated in the text, or intended by the people who designed the government. It's arguably the most consequential power of any branch of government and it's just something they decided they could do one day. Maybe on the same level as the President just deciding that he can declare wars unilaterally without input from Congress.
has no legal power determine whether laws are constitutional or not
that's a big, almost sovereign citizen level, stretch. just because judicial review isn't explicitly conveyed to the Court in the plain text of the constitution, doesn't mean there's no basis in law. and even if marshall's arguments weren't good, just as a matter of positive law, yeah, the very fact that the entirety of american jurisprudence has the SC making these decisions, which are respected as binding and precedential, suggests that they are arbiters of consitutional law. the "bad man" listens to what the Court says, if we are being cleareyed and pragmatic about it.
but sure, yeah, potus could ignore the SC, just as it could seize congress, or quarter troops in your home, or take your personal firearms, or whatever: any justification given would accepted, so long as everyone lets them do it, lol.
Which, it cannot be said often enough or loudly enough, has no legal power determine whether laws are constitutional or not. That's just something everyone lets them do. The POTUS could ignore them at any time with no recourse or repercussions.
Is there somewhere I can read more about this?
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=The%20best%2Dknown%20power%20of,Madison%20(1803)
I mean the court ruling is technically a legal power, isn't it? Or is it a tautology where they gave themselves the power to give themselves the power
They claimed to have the power based on deduction from the constitution. There's no document or law that actually says they have power. They very literally just said "We have this power" and everyone rolled with it. And the times when the President said "lul fuck you you have no power" the SCOTUS just flailed and squirmed because they do not, in fact, have any actual power.
ok but how is this any different from how people treat the "explicit" textual powers conveyed from a constitution, say? what document or law empowers the constitution? the document of the "Constitution" is not a source of talismanic power; it's simply one more touchstone in a sea of sources of law, others of which include the Court's decisions.
all of these can be analytically ignored, the decisions of the Court or any reading of constitutional text. their power comes from the fact that they are, mostly, respected as law, but that need not be the case, just as american's no longer respect english parliment as sovereign.
You're right in the sense that it's all just handshake agreements and norms. I just think it's notworthy that the branch of government that nominally has veto powers on all laws doesn't actually derive that power from anything stated in the text, or intended by the people who designed the government. It's arguably the most consequential power of any branch of government and it's just something they decided they could do one day. Maybe on the same level as the President just deciding that he can declare wars unilaterally without input from Congress.
that's a big, almost sovereign citizen level, stretch. just because judicial review isn't explicitly conveyed to the Court in the plain text of the constitution, doesn't mean there's no basis in law. and even if marshall's arguments weren't good, just as a matter of positive law, yeah, the very fact that the entirety of american jurisprudence has the SC making these decisions, which are respected as binding and precedential, suggests that they are arbiters of consitutional law. the "bad man" listens to what the Court says, if we are being cleareyed and pragmatic about it.
but sure, yeah, potus could ignore the SC, just as it could seize congress, or quarter troops in your home, or take your personal firearms, or whatever: any justification given would accepted, so long as everyone lets them do it, lol.