WASHINGTON (CN) — In 1803 the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling establishing judicial review. Over 200 years later its chief justice asks what happens when the majority of the court is willing to throw away that basic principle.
Chief Justice John Roberts worried — not for the first time — about the court’s legitimacy when he wrote a partial dissent in the court’s ruling on a near abortion ban in Texas last week. Roberts said the purpose and effect of the law were to “nullify this Court’s rulings” and then cited Marbury v. Madison which established the court’s supremacy over state legislatures.
“Indeed, ‘[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,’” Roberts wrote. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
The Texas law — Senate Bill 8 — uses a unique enforcement mechanism that delegates its enforcement to citizens instead of government officials. ...
KEEP REAFING
No comments:
Post a Comment