Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

So.... its hard to be a lawyer.

The Supreme Court has always reversed earlier rulings and changed its opinion with the times. In 1928 (Olmstead v. United States), the Supreme Court ruled that wiretaps did NOT violate the 4th and 5th Amendment. (The argument was that you didn't own the telephone lines, so there was no expectation of privacy). This was more or less confirmed in Goldman v. United States (1942).

It wasn't until 1967 (Katz v. United States) that Wiretaps were declared "search" that required a warrant.

None of these changes were due to Congressional Action. They were all due to Supreme Court cases. And this is why Lawyers are paid a lot of bucks... because its their job to keep up with not only Congressional law, but with Supreme Court rulings (interpretations of law), which can change on the whims of the Supreme Court Justices.

I've always seen the Supreme Court as a farce. The very fact that laws are decided upon without consensus is troubling to think about. If these justices are the most authoritative judges of constitutional matters and disagree with each other on fundamental rulings shows the subjectivity and flaws of the legal system.

The law is not a democracy, and a 5-4 ruling is the greatest absurdity of this system. Presumably, if another political party was in power for an appointment, the decision may be the exact opposite. If the constitution is so treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions are made on constitutional matters?

    If the constitution is so treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions are made on constitutional matters?

The Supreme Court gains its powers from the Constitution. Its like you've never even read the Constitution. Article III. If you don't like the Supreme Court, then you don't like the Constitution. Period.

No offense, but your words sound hugely ignorant of the meaning of the word "Constitution", or the theory of law under which it works.

True, but this article isn't about the Court's ability to reverse or distinguish prior opinions with new ones. It's about their practice of quietly sneaking substantive edits into opinions months or years after initial decisions were handed down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com