The CJ decides who writes the opinion of the majority if in the majority, and the dissent if in the dissent. Its the job of the CJ to bring sides together in clear oppositions, and "horse trade" between bits and pieces of a decision so that its clear where a majority/minority lie.

The CJ's foremost political role is to ensure the judicial branch of government is seen as a politically legitimate institution which wields its power against the other branches in a constitutionally and poltiically legitimate way. If that slips, congress can start hiring/firing; and the executive, in the end, controls the guns -- they can be arrested.

To avoid being arrested or fired, the court has to keep all sides believing the rules they set are fair.

They have no power, in the end, but the power they are allowed to have. They govern by consent of the other branches, and that's trivial to take away

▲

dmitrygr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> They govern by consent of the other branches, and that's trivial to take away

That is entirely not at all what the us constitution says

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In the case of the legislative branch, the Constitution actually says pretty much exactly that. See Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2

▲

mjburgess 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll refer you to article 50 of the constitution of the USSR,

> Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/Russian/const/77cons02....

---

which is to say, "constitutions" as pieces of paper, do not matter. A constitution isnt a document, its literally, how power is constituted by the people.

Paper has no magical power to bring about anything in the world.

One day, decades or centuries or millenia from now -- there will be no USA SC: at one point they will have been arrested, or killed, or retired and not replaced. At once point democracy in the US will fail, and the US will fail, and something else will replace it. Sic transit gloria mundi. So it goes. History goes on.

The world isnt a program, words are not its code. History goes along because power as insittuitionalised by groups of apes, comes and goes.

▲

ocdtrekkie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes but the Constitution has to actually be followed for it to work. The Supreme Court has no military or police, if the President chooses to disobey them and the military and police follow the President's orders... there isn't much the Court can do about it. The system works when everyone executes the system faithfully, but that isn't meaningfully happening right now.

▲

dmitrygr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The system works when everyone executes the system faithfully, but that isn't meaningfully happening

You are entirely right, we really need to prosecute presidents who do not follow SCOTUS rulings, like [1] and [2]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/joe-biden-student-debt-forgivene...

[2] https://www.cato.org/blog/obama-administration-ignores-supre...

▲

ocdtrekkie 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, this is the textbook definition of whataboutism. =)

But I am indeed of the inclination that we should demand the rule of law from Presidents of all parties. Generally speaking, I am in favor of a significant downsizing of the authority of the President as a whole. They have far too many powers and are granted too much leniency to use them "in case of emergency" which has increasingly just turned into every President declaring everything they want to do an emergency. Presidents should be subject to prosecution for misconduct, and upheld to the highest standards of the law, and we should have systems in place to swiftly and effectively remove them if they do not meet them. The bar for impeachment and removal is too high when it is unattainable in a two-party system where the President controls one of those parties.

Our country does not need kings of any party.

	▲	dmitrygr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We are in violent agreement