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?
“Brown didn’t say that the court ‘cheated’ in Plessy”
I’m not saying the Roberts court cheated in Obamacare, really. I was just borrowing your language.
“its finding of fact was in error”
So SCOTUS was in error. Whatever became of them being right by definition?
“debate about Brown continues (sadly, IMO, but legitimately)”
Why sadly if it’s legitimate? I think Brown was flat out wrong, personally. We must accept silly sociological arguments for what constitutes legitimate state interest since we lost wide ideological agreement on what constitutes just governance. But playing on their field, segregation is not inherently damaging to children. Racially, ethnically, and otherwise homogenously populated schools have proven to outperform in every measurable manner melting pot public schools. Brown was factually mistaken.
“The arguments that won in Brown couldn’t have been made much earlier than 1950”
What’s this now? The Constitution’s meaning changes over time? Or, again, was SCOTUS previously wrong, in which case it is not by definition right?
“It’s important to note how rare such reversals are”
No it isn’t. Or if it is, not for this discussion. It is irrelevant to my point.
“We have to fight it intelligently”
You think nullification is stupid, I know. But what am I to think of that coming from someone who shortly ago was arguing for SCOTUS infallibility?
“What if we won with better ideas instead of sore-loser lawsuits and state-level bills”
Firstly, I don’t know how much time and effort this bill is wasting. If it publicizedls the much deprived notion of nullification, that much is worth it to me. Not that I like symbolic bills. But I do like press for my pet issues.
Secondly, enough with this sore-loser stuff. Were the complaintants of Brown sore losers? Is everything Might Makes Right with you?
Serious query, with no hidden sarcasm et cetera: What would we do, how would we proceed, where would we start? Your hypothesis sounds daunting to me, but then it's far afield from my knowledge and experience. Also, it would seem that some entrepreneurs (and they still exist) would already be proceeding to do just what you suggest. Don't mistake my query for opposition or criticism. Your idea is intriguing but daunting.
By the way, after reading this thread, I see a mix of idealism and pragmatism crossing figurative swords here and there. Am sympathetic to both isms, being alternately afflicted with both, sometimes at the same time. Being afflicted by both isms sometimes seems worse than tending towards just one. :-(