Hypothetically if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that directly goes against the Constitution which should we follow?
Temporarily, the Supreme Court. However, the next step is to write an amendment to the Constitution. That is saying, that there was not an actual violation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court that went against the letter of the constitution, not just the spirit. If the Supreme Court has become radicalized, The president could actually install more members. FDR almost did that.
SCOTUS interprets the constitution, they rule on cases based on the current situation and the constitution combined. That's why it may not always seem like they r going exactly by what the constitution says, they must make adjustments as time goes on
This question completely misunderstands how the constitution and its three branches of government work. It is impossible for the supreme court to go against the constitution. As others have mentioned, the supreme court is the final interpreter of the constitution. I have noticed that many Republicans and libertarians are trying to claim that they are the ultimate followers of the constitution, as if their interpretations are the only valid ones. It is similar to biblical interpretation. Next time ted Cruz talks about the constitution, listen to how he preaches that he is the only candidate who adheres to the constitution. No, he is adhering to his interpretation of the constitution. It drives me crazy.
There is room for interpretation. There is also the possibility of completely disregarding what it says; otherwise the document is meaningless.
The constitution tell we get rid of our liberal stacked Scotus
America is built on laws and a system, yes, but it was not built to bow to tyranny or whimper and comply with failure, purposeful or not.
If SCOTUS makes a ruling, by definition, its constitutional.
The Constitution, not five lawyers' interpretation of it, is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Well sure, if there was unanimous, unambiguous, agreement among the people that that was the case. But there's not much point hypothesizing about fantasy scenarios.
In reality, what constitutes "direct opposition to the constitution" is nebulous and open to interpretation. Since that's the supreme court's job you have to go with them even when some people disagree otherwise why even have them.
The Supreme Court decides what the constitution says. This is a catch 22 lol
Both answers are the same because the Constitution states that the Supreme Court has the final say on legal matters.
The reason we have the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. So the Supreme Court.
Interestingly that function of the Court was never in the Constitution.
That's not just hypothetical.
So far we have gone with the Supreme Court.
Well in theory the constitution, but they have made many many rulings that go against it and most people follow them blindly.
The Dems sure love their unelected oligarchies that's why.
Supreme Court. Their one job is to interpret the constitution. If you forgo them, you may as well not even have a Supreme Court. Everyone just sorts out what the constitution means for themselves.
Supreme Court. They have reversed themselves before and they'll do it again. It is their job to interpret and no one is perfect. There are people now who argue that the Supreme Court has already gone directly against the Constitution in a number of cases. That argument appears to go nowhere until the court reverses itself.