I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.

For what little I’ve gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn’t there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?

Why can’t a judge say “I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings”?

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    By definition, anything the SCOTUS rules is constitional. Typically, in the US, until a law defines or forbids something, it’s legal.

    In cases like Roe v. Wade, there not a direct or clear law that says “abortion is legal.” It was a right to privacy that Roe leaned on, that a woman’s decision to get an abortion or not was covered as a privacy issue. Which is not an altogether permanent ruling over a longer time frame and a change in justices and a new case can change how the law is interpreted. The more permanent version would be a constitutional amendment that would be harder to undo, doesnt rely on the SCOTUS to interpret nuance, and is the result of a push by the American people to change a law.

    Ultimately, the way to nullify a SCOTUS ruling is to make a more clear law that says “no, actually, we want this.”

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      No, the Constitution is constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn the Constitution even if they engage in bad faith interpretations of it.

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        No, the SCOTUS interprets the laws for implementation. All SCOTUS can overturn is previous interpretations.