"These jurists are appointed for life." They seem to have a pretty good deal, I'll take that job if there looking for someone, and they get quite a nice Pension !!!
I agree and I am amused when posters say, "They're taking more time because they're trying to get it right.... .. they realize this is a big precedent setting decision... the companies have asked for a delay because they're negotiating". Yeah right!!! I don't believe they give a twit. The decision comes out when they say it comes out. mo. .. nic
They simply do not care what may be riding on the outcome of a case for outside third parties.
Loop,I am again reminded that "the law is what we say it is" remains the mindset of most Federal judges.
Perhaps it will also be significant to Your Honor, and to others who may read this letter, that in the almost 200 years since Marbury, not once has the U.S. Supreme Court ever quoted what Marshall wrote about the constitutional oath of office in that case.(20) Instead, the Supreme Court and other federal and state courts have cited Marbury hundreds of times for another proposition, namely, that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is". 5 U.S. at 177. This statement, which was rejected as dangerous by the nation's then President Thomas Jefferson,(21) was made by Marshall only in the context of the judicial duty to determine the "original and supreme will" of the people expressed in the Constitution. Later Supreme Court justices have divorced it from its context and perverted it to mean that "the law is what the judges say it is", even if what they say has no basis in the Constitution.
The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have surpassed the Calhounian doctrine that the States are accountable to no one but themselves under the Constitution, with their doctrine that every branch of government, federal or state, is accountable to no one but the justices. In their system, by admittedly reserving the right to change or ignore the meaning of Constitutional provisions as they see fit, the justices treat the Constitution as a contract which they may unilaterally "reform" to their wishes, not as a law binding on them as well as everyone else. The legislative and executive branches of government, in this system, are agents of the judiciary, and must carry out judicial orders. The Justices alone remain above the law.
Loop, "They simply do not care what may be riding on the outcome of a case for outside third parties."
Absolutely! At least we would hope it is thus, after all, they are supposed to be fair and impartial.
But this doesn't mean they can't run a tight operation while they are doing it; and this should include providing a clear, consistant, and timely reporting process for their decisions, imo. Is this too much to expect?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
