Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
No court is bound by anything they don't want to be bound by. If that was the case Citizen United wouldn't have been decided the way it was. LOL.
If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would know that. You would know the main talent of constitutional lawyers is tailoring their argment to fit the justices in play on the bench.
There is no such thing as settled law, so your talk of any Constitutional setting in practice as settled and concrete is ridiculous on its face.
I don't think the point could be made any clearer in reality than the contrieved decision the Court made with regard to Nationalized Romneycare/Obamacare.
Like I said though, you are going to believe what you want, and I'm going to believe what I believe.
Personally I don't see why people would want one corrupt body that no one could get away from over 50 smaller bodies that are forced to compete against each other.
I'm sorry, but it's a basic fact the Supreme Court holds itself to the doctrine of Stare Decisis. While there is certainly a large political component to many of its decisions, that would not be a factor in this case. The more novel the case, the more novel the legal and factual subject matter, the larger the political component of the decision might
be. I could find you case after case where Scalia himself says he doesn't like what he's ruling, but feels obligated to do so because of stare decisis.
Your conception of how the Supreme Court works is a very common layman misconception. Sorry.
A hypothetical law regulating boxing would not be based on novel arguments (in contrast to say... Obamacare, which sought to regulate inactivity
). It would be based on arguments rooted in decades upon decades of precedent. In order for the Court to feel comfortable overturning the law, it would have to distinguish it from this precedent. Any attempt to do so would be extraordinarily sophistic and the court simply wouldn't do it. To do so would overturn an enormous chunk of the foundation of Commerce Clause doctrine. It simply wouldn't happen.
And in fact, the recent health care ruling almost certainly argues directly to the opposite of what you think it does. The reason Roberts switched sides and voted to uphold the law was because he felt that the Court was becoming too politicized, too activist, and was jeopardizing its legitimacy. Roberts' majority opinion rests on the concept of judicial deference:
Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. “Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2579 (2012)