|
|
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
From the chief justice's opinion
Our permissive reading of these powers is explained 1) in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an 2) Act of Congress only if " 3) the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. 4) It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
As i suspected, you've allowed yourself a very specific and wrong interpretation of what happened.
1. "In part" means there were other considerations at play, the relative weighting of each could only be determined by a thorough reading of the decision.
2. This was an Act of Congress, not a promise by a president, they are referring to (the fact the act happened to fulfill a presidential promise is irrelevant because the SC is mentioning only the Act of Congress and does not consider whether or not the act was done to fulfill a presidential promise or not - likely because the SC is not retarded).
3. The issue they are referring to here is whether the Congress has the authority to pass law, which the SC concludes it obviously does.
4. The last point is made in reference to laws that are passed by elected officials. It is definitely NOT the SC saying 'whatever promises those elected officials made must inevitably become law'.
|
Reply With Quote