In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.
A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.
True, but that’s the role of the Supreme Court. Until a successor court (presuming there is one) does that, which may not be for another decade, the lower courts will follow these horrible decisions because they are precedent even though wrongly decided.
Of course, Congress could act. But. Y’know. We can’t even elect a President much less a majority of both houses.
In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.
A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.
True, but that’s the role of the Supreme Court. Until a successor court (presuming there is one) does that, which may not be for another decade, the lower courts will follow these horrible decisions because they are precedent even though wrongly decided.
Of course, Congress could act. But. Y’know. We can’t even elect a President much less a majority of both houses.