Well, do note that of the three branches of government, the one where people HAVE to be judges is the Judicial branch (i imagine the president can nominate whoever he wants, but it seems unlikely that the Senate would confirm someone who isn't a highly respected judge, Clarence Thomas notwithstanding). So i would tend to find their interpretation of the Constitution more trustworthy.
If the President decides to not abide by a SC judgement, i would imagine that the job falls to Congress to "make him". It should make for good drama, at least.
> So i would tend to find their interpretation of the Constitution more trustworthy.
Me too. And that's a reputation the Supremes very much want to keep intact, partly because this special power of theirs is self-appointed, as I mentioned. It's interesting that lately, with the Scalia mini-controversies and the Blackmun's private papers being released, the Court looks more and more like a bunch of normal people who, though they are senior judges, take personal biases and politics and PR into account a lot more than I (and probably many other people) wish they would...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If the President decides to not abide by a SC judgement, i would imagine that the job falls to Congress to "make him". It should make for good drama, at least.
no subject
Me too. And that's a reputation the Supremes very much want to keep intact, partly because this special power of theirs is self-appointed, as I mentioned. It's interesting that lately, with the Scalia mini-controversies and the Blackmun's private papers being released, the Court looks more and more like a bunch of normal people who, though they are senior judges, take personal biases and politics and PR into account a lot more than I (and probably many other people) wish they would...