“the arguments now are, ‘We lost, they must have cheated.’”
Isn’t that the implicit argument whenever SCOTUS reverses itself? Take one of the Levy’s favirite cases, Brown. Didn’t it declare the court’s thumb was on the scale in Plessy? Even if only SCOTUS can correct SCOTUS people arguing against segregation between Plessy and Brown weren’t just bellyaching.
One of the things that annoyed me most about Robert’s decision was how he reduced it to “Hey you lost the vote, deal with it.” As if the legal arguments were merely superstructure to the democratic process. Which they are, I grant you. It’s no coincidence you can predict how people will read the law based on party affiliation. But that’s not all it is. There are supposed to be limits, so that not any old thing the majority—or well organized minority—wants becomes law.
Listening to Roberts I don’t get the feeling of a constitutional republic. Say he’s right about the law, just for a second. Still, the way he puts it, the thrust is elections are the thing. Get over it, loser, we’re in now. Sickens me.
What’s really being argued on here is who constitutes the sovereign power in the United States - the people as represented through their respective States who acceded to and established the Constitution, or the SCOTUS, which only exists as an instrument of that Constitution.
I say the people and their respective States are the sovereign power, even above and beyond the word of the SCOTUS.
Isn’t that the implicit argument whenever SCOTUS reverses itself? Take one of the Levy’s favirite cases, Brown. Didn’t it declare the court’s thumb was on the scale in Plessy? Even if only SCOTUS can correct SCOTUS people arguing against segregation between Plessy and Brown weren’t just bellyaching.
Brown didn't say that the Court "cheated" in Plessy, but that its finding of fact was in error. In fact, debate about Brown continues (sadly, IMO, but legitimately).
It's important to note how rare such reversals are. Even the horrible Dred Scott decision was never overturned -- it was invalidated with a Constitutional Amendment.
Even if only SCOTUS can correct SCOTUS people arguing against segregation between Plessy and Brown weren’t just bellyaching.
Yes. And ultimately, the point isn't that "we're stuck with it," but that we have to fight it intelligently. There were major shifts in the culture between Plessy and Brown. The arguments that won in Brown couldn't have been made much earlier than 1950.
Now here's something I find interesting: it's already explicitly legal for a state to opt out of Obamacare. It can do so as long as it covers the same number of people with the same level of coverage. If it can meet this goal, it can do so any way it pleases. Vermont, which is rabidly socialist, is already preparing to do this with their own state-based single payer system. What if we put all of this time and energy into coming up with a better free-market system for our states? What if we won with better ideas instead of sore-loser lawsuits and state-level bills?