Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law (Congress, controversial, school)

[sargentodiaz]

[I thought there might be a Law and Justice thread but can't find one]

I read the piece @ Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law | Tenth Amendment Center and it seems to fly in the face of everything I was taught, have read, and heard in the media. Isn't Roe versus Wade something that overturned a law?

Really thought-provoking in that it claims federal courts only settle disputes and do not to override or enact laws.

So, how did we get to where we are today? Any insight?

[robbobobbo]

The courts certainly can invalidate laws as a side effect of a decision, but they don't enact (create) laws. This is called judicial review. From almost the earliest days of the country, this has been controversial because it's not explicitly mentioned in Article III of the Constitution as a power of the Judiciary.

In settling a dispute ("controversy" in Constitutional language), if one party is citing a law that the court determines violates the Constitution, they would find in favor of the other party. Then their decision has set precedent for any future cases involving that law, which now has been found unconstitutional. Even if the law remained on the books, future parties would be disinclined to use it as the basis for their case, due to the precedent against it.

How did we get here? Look up Marbury v Madison.

[DC at the Ridge]

Tenth Amendment Center-----nullifier nuts.

The Civil War resolved this issue. The nullifiers want to fight the war all over again, in courtrooms. Guess what? They'll lose again. The federal courts aren't going to rule against the federal government's superiority over state authority. Especially with 150 years of precedent to support themselves.

[DauntlessDan]

What robbobobbo said. Marbury vs Madison was a landmark case in that it started/enlarged the whole judicial review process by the supreme court that continues today. Right there was where the supreme court should have been "nipped in the bud" and limited on what it could review/rule on. (My opinion and there are some in this forum upon reading this that will say, "Oh, I suppose then you support slavery". Get a life people!). Generally the way it is SUPPOSED to work is that congress makes the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws and the executive enforces the laws. At least that's what we were taught in school way back when. And that is VERY basic. Roe Vs Wade should have been sent back to the states for individual states to rule on BUT the supreme court made a long reach and found/invented constitutional precedent for it.