🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxqFx6.Iz@constant.demon.co.uk> slangley@constant.demon.co.uk (Simon Langley) writes:
>What you are describing is Constitutional inertia.  This is a good thing 
>if you have a good Constitution, and I believe that your Constitution is
>largely something to be proud of.  However, if a decision were made
>that reduced civil rights (eg if Roe v. Wade were overturned) it would be
>difficult to change it back, even if a majority of the population thought
>that it was wrong.
It would depend entirely on what the opinion said. In the Anglo-American
system, judges cannot conduct inquisitions; they can only preside over cases
that are brought to them. And by the time the US Supreme Court sees a
case, the issue is usually whether a certain law should be struck down as
unconstitutional. In the case of abortion, the issue has been whether
the states have the right to restrict the right to an abortion, not
whether the states can make abortions legal. If the former question is
answered "yes", then those states that decide not to enact laws against
abortion do not have to do so. But if the court goes much further and says
that the latter statement is true, then the only thing that could overrule
them would be an amendment to the Constitution, which I agree is a slow
and painful process (by design).

In other words, the fine print of a Supreme Court decision can be very
important.

Phil
>: As former Justice Brennan used to say, "The majority already have the
>: other two branches of government. We're here for the minority."
>: 
>What does Justice Rehnquist have to say on this subject :-).

Probably "Let's just rubberstamp the government's cases here and go
home early. After all, the government reflects the will of the
majority, and most of the people who are accused of crimes are guilty
anyway."

Phil