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.
Republicans saying Dems cheat to win could already kiss my ass, but come on now.
They are doing everything in their power, including usurping power from the courts and the people simultaneously. Voters spoke loudly with a 14% margin, and they still strive to maintain control.
If I'm understanding the gist of this, there are claims that the ballot initiative is either vague or potentially in conflict with existing laws. These lawmakers think they should be the ones to decide how to adjust existing laws and implement interpretations of vague portions of the new law - to the exclusion of court interpretation.
I'm mostly okay with them adjusting existing laws so long as they don't conflict with the new law. In my opinion, that's part of their job. But if they want to avoid court scrutiny, they better get started right away. Once a case goes before the courts and a decision is reached, that's it. No more argument after that.
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. Legislators define laws, courts interpret laws, and the executive carries out and enforces the laws.
It amazes me that some people still don't see the similarities between current political party behavior and the very definition of fascism.
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.
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.
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.