United States | News & Politics

1872 readers

575 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

Ohio Republicans move to exclude judges from interpreting enshrined abortion rights (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 months ago by JonEFive@midwest.social to c/usa@midwest.social

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After stinging defeat in a statewide vote, GOP lawmakers seek to move jurisdiction to legislature for constitutional amendment

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

However, interpreting the law, particularly the state constitutional amendment, is an absolute right of the judicial branch. It is one of the most basic principles of our three branch system.

Is it though? Judicial review doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Many countries have a three branch system, and most explicitly disallow judicial review. In the US, the Supreme Court claimed the right to perform judicial review was implied in the Constitution, which is just a bit recursive for me.

We don't elect the court, so the court should not be making laws. In this particular case, I would almost certainly side with the court over the legislature but, more often than not, judicial review has been used to thwart the will of the people.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t have a problem with judicial review not existing except in cases of ballot initiatives where this law exists solely because we need to bypass our legislative body.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 11 months ago

It's a tricky problem for sure, but I was responding specifically to the portion I quoted.

Ultimately, elections are a far better method for dealing with a legislature that openly violates constitutional mandate. An unelected judiciary is as likely to side with the legislature as they are with the constitution or the people. (Just look at our national Supreme Court.) I really hope the voter activism caries through in this case.