Has the Supreme Court ever done the unpopular but wrong thing? If the court does a popular but right thing, that would be appropriate deference--I suspect we have a tautology here.
What I mean to say is they did their job when they made the ruling. It wasn't the job of the Supreme Court to end slavery and they recognized that. Since to end slavery would have started a war and the Supreme Court JOB is to uphold the constitution and not start wars, create new laws, or alter the constitution to support "fundamental liberties".
The ending of slavery was a job for congress, in the long run, and the suspension of it for a short term period was the job of the executive branch. That is why the 13th admendment was needed to make the actions of Lincoln legal.
The inturnment of Japanize in WW2 was constitutional as a war power of the executive branch much the same as the temp. suspension of the slavery was constitutional for Lincoln to do. But if it had extended beyond that presidents rule with out a law passed it would have been unconsitutional.
The trouble is the vague idea of "fundamental liberties" and the wrong idea that the job of the Supreme Court is to "protect fundamental liberties". The job of the Supreme Court is the "Uphold the constitutional" even with moderal liberal understanding it is to "rule if something is constitutional". If the contitution is unfair somewhere it is the job of congress to pass admandments to make it fair.
(no subject)
(no subject)
That was both unpopular, mostly in the north, and the wrong thing, and also at the time the constitutionally correct ruling.
(no subject)
The ending of slavery was a job for congress, in the long run, and the suspension of it for a short term period was the job of the executive branch. That is why the 13th admendment was needed to make the actions of Lincoln legal.
The inturnment of Japanize in WW2 was constitutional as a war power of the executive branch much the same as the temp. suspension of the slavery was constitutional for Lincoln to do. But if it had extended beyond that presidents rule with out a law passed it would have been unconsitutional.
The trouble is the vague idea of "fundamental liberties" and the wrong idea that the job of the Supreme Court is to "protect fundamental liberties". The job of the Supreme Court is the "Uphold the constitutional" even with moderal liberal understanding it is to "rule if something is constitutional". If the contitution is unfair somewhere it is the job of congress to pass admandments to make it fair.