It's not "interpreting a law as unconstitutional", just "interpreting the law". As in "how does the law apply to this situation?".
Also, why are Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?
So I'm not sure what your point is.
> What’s the difference between a court opining that a law is unconstitutional and a court interpreting a law as unconstitutional?
That question was a reply to this comment:
> Citizens United was based on the law being unconstitutional, not the court’s interpretation of the law.
That comment is referring to two different things SCOTUS can do:
1. Throw out a law because it is unconstitutional.
2. Interpret the law by deciding how it applies in a particular case.
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. That's all.
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.
You read:
> 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].
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.
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.
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.
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.