Hacker News Reader

Comment by cogman10 | Hacker News Reader

The problem with this ruling is it's out of the Supreme court's jurisdiction. The supreme court/federal courts do not have jurisdiction over all legal cases, and they can be stripped of the ability to hear cases. That's what happened with the creation of the NLRB.

Article 3 section II

> In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress made an exception with the creation of the NLRB which means the supreme court should not have heard this case.

View on HN

Yes, but remember that the Supreme Court also has the power to interpret the constitution and declare laws unconstitutional.

But I don’t think your reading is quite right. If congress could simply declare exemptions to Supreme Court appellate review, the court would have no power at all.

Right, but this is the court declaring the constitution unconstitutional. Something anyone that subscribes to originalism or textualism should be disturbed by.

This is an activist action by the entire court.

Considering the constitution doesn’t explicitly talk about workers unions at all other than the generic freedom of association(1), whatever, there’s plenty of room for interpretation.

(1)And even that is subject to law, free association with terrorists isn’t a good idea.

Let’s also not forget this is a 9-0. If you are accusing all of our judges as being activists, across all political lines, I know who the real activist is.

The NLRB relies on other courts to grant injunctions, which is the matter at hand here. The SC has not ruled on the underlying case or even whether an injunction should be granted - only what test the lower court should have used to determine that.

An exception? Like how the CFPB was created independently such that it didn’t answer to the president?

(Actual exceptions like this would violate separation-of-powers principles and typically get struck down.)

The Supreme Court, the final arbiter of such regulations, disagrees. The court rulings about the law, are the actual law.

The Supreme court isn't though. It's only the final arbiter when congress hasn't explicitly removed that power from them.

This is the supreme court claiming power to itself that it has no right to by the constitution.

The supreme court, according to the article I just cited, is the final arbiter by default, but not by right. Congress can strip that right from them. This is why, for example, the supreme court does not hear military tribunal cases.

The Supreme Court though, has the power to determine when Congress can do that, and can’t do that. In other words, the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority.

So it’s kind of a moot point. Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).

> the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority.

Not really. Congress can, for example, impeach 1 or all of the supreme court justices. The supreme court cannot stop themselves from being removed from the court. They can claim authority and that they have the right to do that, but they are not above congress, they are coequal.

> Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).

Agreed, ultimately the ball is in congress's court (which they will most certainly drop). Congress could decide that this is the supreme court taking too much power and remove them all, but they aren't going to do that because this is likely a decision most representatives are perfectly fine with. So nothing will likely happen here. I'm just saying that this decision is one that the court never should have heard, not that practically they have heard it, and their enforcement is likely to stand.

I’m not saying that.

I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said they couldn’t. Even though there are constitutional restrictions to when Congress can make such exemptions, and the SCOTUS can rule on them as they please (in practice).

Your argument to the contrary is about as interesting as Soverign Citizen understandings of law. I suppose we’re still ruled by George III and have been in a 248-year state of rebellion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com