• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 days ago

    Don’t forget Judicial Review isn’t actually an original function of the Judicial Branch. It’s a power they decided to give themselves some ten years after the Constitution was written.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Yeah that’s the other thing, a single branch should not be able to give itself new powers.

      Judicial Review in of itself isn’t the craziest concept, plenty of other democracies have adopted similar processes since then and it has seemed to serve them well, but I can guarantee that none of those other democracies saw those processes invented by the courts that use them themselves.

      Also, if a law goes out of effect because of a ruling, it should be considered stricken completely, that shit in Arizona where they tried to frog boil everyone on that law that was “technically” on the books even if it was unenforceable should never have been allowed to get anywhere.

      Every ten years the current body of law should be censused and coalesced to provide an up to date resource on the current body of law and standing precedents, and if there’s some obscure law that hasn’t been enforceable since the civil war is “technically” still on the books because the state legislature or whatever never got around to officially voting to nix it, it should still be booted because it’s an illegal law and therefore cannot be part of the body of law even for hypotheticals where the law or ruling countermanding it get overturned themselves.