Hacker News Reader

> so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up.

Or the constitution can be amended.

Sure, but I don't blame the Court at times for going "sure, we could reject this, and cause a couple decades worth of clear, widespread harm, which might generate enough political will to push one through" and noping out.

This was Scalia's position basically.. he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.

> he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.

during the time Scalia was on the US Supreme Court (1986-2016), there was 1 amendment to the US constitution (27th) that was took 202 years for approvals. since I don't think he could be considered naive, it is almost certain he was disingenuous.

Why would he 'almost certain[ly]' be disingenuous? He stated in at least one interview that he believed the amendment process was too onerous in its requirements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com