However, some arguments here on HN
have started to convince me that
the SCOTUS role as 'supreme' or
'final' is not really correct and that
Jefferson saw this. Instead,
after the SCOTUS come the voters
who can tell Congress, e.g.,
"I don't care what the SCOTUS says.
I'm a citizen and a voter, and I
say that what the NSA has been
doing spying on US citizens
violates the Fourth Amendment,
and I want you to pass a law
throttling the NSA and
getting them honoring
the Fourth Amendment."
And if such a law is not enough,
then the citizens can
amend the Constitution.
It will be nice if some plaintiff
with standing to sue brings
a case before the SCOTUS and
wins. E.g., maybe a class action
on behalf of all 120 million or
so Verizon customers who had their
telephone metadata grabbed by the NSA.
Apparently Google is bringing a case.
Effectively, no judgement is ever really final. This is because, in a democracy, we must constantly acknowledge that our judgement could be wrong. Separation of powers, as you correctly describe it, manifests that acknowledgement by providing an avenue to contradict every action. Congress can pass a stupid law, but the President can refuse to sign it and the SCOTUS can deem it unconstitutional. The President can sign a stupid order, but Congress can impeach him. SCOTUS can make a stupid decision, but the President can refuse to acknowledge it and Congress can rewrite the rules.
It's not easy in any case, and there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Generally speaking, each branch declines to take their nuclear option by acknowledging the implicit threat available and compromising beforehand. Obamacare and DOMA are both recent and useful case studies for this interplay; ignore the content and the rhetoric and just look at the mechanics of what each entity did and when and why.
Yeah, but if the People get a law passed to say what they want, then the Attorney General declines to defend/enforce it, and then Supreme Court rules that the People don't have standing.
> (as the court is the last defender of the constitution)
and in part I was responding to that, and
other claims, that the SCOTUS is
the 'last word' or some such. And recently there
is a Jefferson quote on one of the related
threads here on HN where Jefferson
in effect says that the SCOTUS judges
are no less corrupt, etc. than people in
other branches of government. The
conclusion is that, really, the last word
and too often the crucial word on
what is constitutional has to
be the voters who tell Congress what
to do and/or push through a
constitutional amendment. So, I
was trying to be realistic and correct
about the real role of the SCOTUS
in protecting, say, the Fourth Amendment
and not to push politics.
"I don't care what the SCOTUS says. I'm a citizen and a voter, and I say that what the NSA has been doing spying on US citizens violates the Fourth Amendment, and I want you to pass a law throttling the NSA and getting them honoring the Fourth Amendment."
And if such a law is not enough, then the citizens can amend the Constitution.
It will be nice if some plaintiff with standing to sue brings a case before the SCOTUS and wins. E.g., maybe a class action on behalf of all 120 million or so Verizon customers who had their telephone metadata grabbed by the NSA. Apparently Google is bringing a case.