Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
Is it the Court's duty to go out of their way to support a law? It seems like Roberts was trying to find a way NOT to overturn the whole thing. Is that a re-defining of the role of SCOTUS?
If so, is it a good thing? Will it still be a good thing when the Court rules against whatever your current position on some future law?
|
If the test is whether it violates the Constitution or not, then yes, there is no practical reason to limit results to only what is being argued or briefed.
C.J. Roberts result is what is expected of all appellate jurists, an examination of legal precident and a recognition of what the purpose of the judiciary is in the checks and balances of our government.