#“or will the next admin ban abortion/birth control/IVF nationwide”

[connectingconstellations]

Meanwhile, in 1803

James: Have you heard the latest news from the Supreme Court?

Sarah: The Supreme Court? Surely they shan't destroy the very fabric of democracy we have fought so hard to gain.

James: Alas, they have determined that it was illegal for Secretary of State James Madison to withhold the writ of mandamus from William Marbury.

Sarah: So Marbury shall commence his appointment in the federal government?

James: No, the Supreme Court also decided that they get to determine when laws are unconstitutional, and they decided that the law saying that the new administration is required to give Marbury his commission is unconstitutional.

Sarah: So, it's a judicial power grab.

James: But Sarah, what could possibly go wrong in a system where 9 unelected men with lifetime appointments get to determine which laws congress can or cannot write?

Sarah: ...

James: Okay, yeah, I heard that.

Sarah: Well, but surely there would be some mechanism for appointing these justices that did not involve them predicting ahead of time whether or not they are likely to die or want to retire during an administration that agrees or disagrees with their political views.

James: And surely even if a President appointed a nominee, congress would vote on that nominee and not blatantly commit a power grab to keep the seat open until a President with opposing views was elected so they could steal that Supreme Court seat.

Sarah: Yes, and surely if a nominee to the court were credibly accused of sexual harassment the Senate would not confirm them to avoid the specter of impropriety? And surely if a different nominee were accused of sexual assault and then threw a temper tantrum about it the Senate would not confirm them, either? I mean, this is giving these people a massive amount of power and surely the President could nominate someone who was not an alleged criminal?

James: And surely these would be men of great wisdom, whose lifetime appointments would prevent them from partisan sway? Surely they would not be beholden to bribery?

Sarah: Yes, and surely if there were to be the appearance of impropriety -- for example, if their wives had advocated for overturning the results of an election or flew flags demonstrating their support for said coup (or just had generally bizarre flag-related opinions) -- they would do the honorable thing and recuse themselves from cases involving the former President who had tried to overthrow the government, right?

James: Yes, and surely they would respect that this country was founded upon the principle that no man is above the law, and therefore Presidents do not have blanket immunity for using their official powers to commit crimes, right? Otherwise, a President could command the military to assassinate his political opponents or attempt a coup d'etat and not face any consequences, and every reasonable person understands that that's an absolutely bonkers way to interpret the constitution, right?

Sarah: Yes, and surely this Marbury v. Madison decision will not allow extremist Supreme Court justices to go about each June blatantly destroying hard-won civil rights and snatching more power for the federal judiciary, right?

James: Of course not. We have a system of checks and balances, so there must be some sort of check on the Supreme Court's power.

Sarah: ...

James: Oh, did they forget that part?

Sarah: It's alright. Surely, 221 years from now, the Supreme Court Justices will recognize that the men who wrote the constitution were just, like, regular people and not demigods.

James: Yes, surely they will not rely on some flimsy premise that we must always and only do things written in the Constitution, and that society and laws can never change.

Sarah: I mean, half of the framers think they can own other people. Surely no one would rely on them as the absolute arbiters of how our nation's laws should work.

James: ...

Sarah: Oh God, we're so totally fucked.