Citizens United was based on the Court interpreting the statute as imposing restrictions on political speech (prosecuting a non-profit for distribution of a movie about Hilary Clinton) that are invalid under the first amendment. That’s not a situation where the court is saying what the law should be; they’re saying what kinds of laws are allowed under the constitution and which aren’t.
Here, the argument isn’t about the constitution. It’s about what “appropriate relief” means in the statute.
The second is analyzing the law, and finding a provision that conflicts with a provision of the constitution. It’s not very formal, but it’s more than opinion.
It’s not quite that pure. If there are self-contradictions in the constitution, then that gives them some choice about what to compare the law to. They ought to balance that appropriately, but their biases surely creep in.
The Supreme Court issues opinions. That's the actual word they use to describe what they write. You can either form an opinion or you can discover a truth. The Supreme Court does not discover whether it is true or not that a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. Each member forms an opinion, and whichever consensus opinion includes the majority of justices, that becomes the opinion by which other courts proceed to interpret the law.
You might want to mask "discover the truth" with "finding a provision", but the Supreme Court does not "find provisions that conflict with other provisions", they interpret things to form opinions. In this case 5 of them interpreted a provision to be in conflict with the way they interpreted a provision of the constitution. 4 of them did not share either or both of those interpretations.
So there’s an external source for this objective information, or are the judges making their own individual interpretations of “how the law applies”? If the former, why do we end up with split votes that so often fall down partisan lines? Seems like if there were a correct interpretation of a law as distinct from an opinion of a law, they would all have access to it and we could cut the justices down from 9 to 1. And we could call that judge The Conveyor of Truth.
Also, why are Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?
OK. I was responding to parent, which stated there is a difference between a judge's interpretation of constitutionality and literal constitutionality - i.e. that a law can be unconstitutional regardless of whether a judge interprets it to be such. Which is obviously nonsense.
> They're saying the Citizens United ruling was of the first type, not the second.
You seemed to miss that, so I was trying to clarify it.
I did not miss that. I was responding to it. Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying.
How did they determine CU was of the first type? Did they interpret it to be of the first type, or is there an objective view of it that simply makes it so? And if the latter, where is this objective view located that all can see? And why did 4 of the 5 justices not have access to see the objective view?
In other words: deciding something is unconstitutional and interpreting something as unconstitutional are exactly the same thing. There is no such thing as unconstitutional outside of interpretation.
> Citizens United was based on the law being [objectively] unconstitutional, not the court’s interpretation of the law [being that it is an unconstitutional one].
I read:
> Citizens United was based on the law being unconstitutional [in the opinion of the court], not the court’s interpretation of [how] the [constitutionally-compatible and therefore still on the books] law [should be applied to Citizens United].
OK. My interpretation seems to be much closer to the words as written. I'd give myself credit for being a textualist, if I didn't think that label was just a scam.
In any case, your read is that the court had an opinion about the constitutionality of CU (which is exactly what it had). And my read is exactly the same: opinion = interpretation.
A law can be so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional that everyone can see it and refuses to arrest or charge people for breaking it. It's pretty easy to construct test examples, "Bob Smith must pay 2x tax", or "Black people can't do X".
The supreme court doesn't make a law unconstitutional. It already was or wasn't. They provide notice to the system that the law will now be seen as unconstitutional or not.
If they get it wrong (lets say we know because another SC overrules them in the future) it doesn't change the constitutionality of the law, just whether it's enforceable or not during those periods.
>The supreme court doesn't make a law unconstitutional. It already was or wasn't.
No. If the Supreme Court is asked whether a law is constitutional or not, they form an opinion on whether it is or is not. The law exists as law up until the moment the Supreme Court is asked and interprets it one way or the other. It does not exist as one or the other until that moment, even though it is the law, and after that moment it only exists as one or the other based upon the majority opinion of 9 people. Laws are not discovered to be constitutional or unconstitutional, because interpretations are not discovered, they are formed.
>A law can be so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional that everyone can see it and refuses to arrest or charge people for breaking it.
That doesn't make the law unconstitutional. It just makes it a bad law. Bad laws can also be constitutional.
The SC isn't supposed to concern itself with justice, that's a sticky matter for the legislators. Their job is to make sure that the legislators followed rules (wrote laws which do not contradict the constitution) and that those laws are properly applied.
Yes, every individual judge has their own skills and opinions and as such, sees the legal question slightly differently, and has different legal interests and thus knows some law more than other. We have a nine as a balance between not having enough diverse backgrounds such that we might be missing the critical input some day weighed against the group being to big to be convenient.
> why do we end up with split votes that so often fall down partisan lines?
People are flawed. Let's say some injustice caused you to get into law. You're likely going to be more familiar with that area, and more sensitive to its harms, than another judge. You may not be voting your ideology, you may be there (as a justice) because of your ideology, and you may have your honest beliefs because of your unique experiences.
I often read opinions I don't agree with, but I can see where the justice just had a different life than me and sees things differently.
> Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?
The only use of objectivity in this thread is yours. But if someone did use that phrasing, they'd mean that the justices should decide the same on the same issue, no matter if it helps a nazi or a nun. Justice is supposed to be blind.
Sure. But it's not random flaws. Liberal people are flawed to believe rules are written as a liberal would interpret them. And conservatives just the opposite. Because the rules do not exist outside of subjective interpretation.
I may be the only person using the word objective in this conversation, but that doesn't mean everyone else in the conversation is not building their arguments on the existence of objectivity in regards to a judges interpretations.
>I often read opinions I don't agree with, but I can see where the justice just had a different life than me and sees things differently.
That's right. Their opinion is nothing more than their interpretation. A couple of people had the opinion that something was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it is, just that they believe it is.
Justice is supposed to be blind. And the Supreme Court opinion that CU was unconstitutional helps corporations just as it helps pro-choice non-profits just as it helps pro-life non-profits. But at the end of the day, it was 5 people who interpreted it as unconstitutional. They did not make the discovery that it is unconstitutional.
