Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

quadtetra

(46 posts)

7. It's true a case needs to come before them first.

Reply to bitterross (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 5, 2018, 01:44 PM

Oct 2018

But once it does, it can strike it down on a whim.

If a case comes before the court regarding law X, the court could literally write:

"We find that law X is invalid because we said so."

End of opinion!

They have zero obligation to follow precedent. They have zero obligation to explain their reasoning. They could literally write the above one sentence opinion and it would stand as valid case law as long as a majority backed up that one sentence decision and opinion!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is SCOTUS too powerful? [View all] quadtetra Oct 2018 OP

There needs to be term limits... dajoki Oct 2018 #1

Should rbg be term limited out ? Fullduplexxx Oct 2018 #2

Only conservative jurists should be term limited. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2018 #3

I love RBG but... dajoki Oct 2018 #5

To late slater71 Oct 2018 #4

No, it is not. You're being "Lindsey-Graham" Dramatic. bitterross Oct 2018 #6

It's true a case needs to come before them first. quadtetra Oct 2018 #7