1994-02-25 - Re: Who makes de law de Law…

Header Data

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
To: wex@media.mit.edu (Alan)
Message Hash: e2ecd9ece890136e39e31fb2b46b9406c9f3a7d3ba7be475032efc8b973aa0d8
Message ID: <199402252212.RAA02322@eff.org>
Reply To: <9402252151.AA17822@media.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-25 22:11:33 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:11:33 PST

Raw message

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:11:33 PST
To: wex@media.mit.edu (Alan)
Subject: Re: Who makes de law de Law...
In-Reply-To: <9402252151.AA17822@media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199402252212.RAA02322@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Mike G has been arguing that the Supreme Court's assertion makes something
> the law of the land, as if it had been written into the Constitution (e.g.
> voting rights).

Let's be precise. What I'm saying is that what the Supreme Court says the
Constitution means is what's binding.
> EG: Blackmun has just come out asserting that he now categorically opposes
> the death penalty.
Which is irrelevant, since the Court hasn't changed its institutional
stance on the death penalty.

Sure, the Court changes its mind, but it doesn't do so very often.