If you wanted to complain about the scotus improperly interpreting existing law the obamacare exchange decision was a much better example. I don't know why you'd chose this case.
I know what this ruling was and I have no problem with it. Let me ask you this though. Say a state passes a law through referendum of its people. The law is challenged in court by some special interest group, goes through the system and eventually lands in SC. At SC the law is prohibited based on interpretation of Constitution. Is this scenario possible, plausible? If yes, you see nothing wrong with a panel overruling decision based on votes of couple dosen million people?
The constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of the people. The system isn't perfect but the situation you're describing seems extremely unlikely. The examples you've given so far have been vague and really haven't been realistic. What alternative would you suggest to the scotus? These are judges ruling on law. It's not like we can just use elected officials instead. Maybe more judges would be a good solution?
As for the Obamacare decision. Most lawyers were surprised the Supreme Court even took the case. It was all based on a few words (that the Dems claimed was a mistake) in a 900 page bill. This btw is often the case mistakes made in these grandiose documents, it's not unusual but the O-Care haters since they haven't been able to do it via Congress and with Obama (after over 50 tries to repeal it) found a technicality. The Supreme Court just ruled that the intent of the bill was to allow subsidies in all states (even those without exchanges) and that the wording was just a mistake. A lot of opponents still think it was done on purpose. Which is a possibility. Some people when polled say they love the ACA but hate Obamacare. Of course they're the same thing.
Point being that the judges had to interpret more in that case than the one this thread is about. They ignored the actual words written in the law in favor of looking at the context of the entire law and what it was supposed to mean. While I completely disagree with Ocare I do think they got it "right", even though I was hoping they ruled against it. The gay marriage case is a pretty clear cut interpretation of the law.
Maybe I'm afraid of thinking up a realistic example. As to alternative... I think putting up a question for nationwide referendum would be better. Not every question of course. And yes, I realize there is a whole separate conversation about which ones should or shouldn't be voted on. Here are a couple that I would certainly like an opportunity to vote on: -Medical system changes -Immigration status of "undocumented" workers Maybe the role of the SC in this should be deciding if the issue is important enough to be brought to vote.
I'm not a lawyer and my knowledge of this is minimal. Just a layman. I'm just repeating what I've read (of course backing my POV). I think they took into consideration what they saw as the intent of the legislation and also that these kinds of mistakes in writing huge documents are standard. It happens a lot. The Heritage Foundation or whatever right wing think tank was involved read it with a fine tooth comb found this mistake and thought it was worth challenging. As I said before many lawyers were surprised the court even took the case. I will never understand this opposition to the ACA. It's a conservative based idea not socialism. It could be a lot better if not so much opposition by people who have no constructive ideas or better alternatives. Armchair Qbs who are against everything.
do you have any understanding of what the difference is between a democracy and a constitutional republic?
ACA is another subject for another thread. If I thought you were capable of having a reasonable conversation without mostly regurgitating a half baked understanding of hysterical ideas that you read in tabloid quality sources I would engage on that.
You brought up the ACA not me. And a civil exchange between us doesn't seem possible. I will try to avoid it.
When laws are established, sure. What about new issues, like illegal immigrants. Would that be something you'd favor a vote on?
Yep, same thing as laws preventing people of different races from marrying. If I was the Right I'd get on the "marriage is a union between two consenting adults" thing in a hurry before events really roll them. It'd be worth the spastic twitch from Antonin Scalia to begin a "it's my right to marry my dog campaign."
Isn't there a major push to summarily legalize all illegals? Ok, you're right, there are laws so it's not new. Guess I'm thinking about change in the existing laws. So when a change is the subject, still SC, not voting?
Not when human rights are involved, votes can be bought and paid for and we have a Supreme Court for a reason just like this.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/?page=all
