In most countries supreme court judges interpret the constitution, and they can do it in a way that even contradicts the original meaning of the constitution. But they arent removed unless a special committee removes them. Imagine a situation when a supreme court judge does this, and he isnt removed (in a way he's validated by the legal system). From a philosophical point of view, if a supreme court judge does an opposite interpretation of the constitution, did he violate the law? How about if you have the original writer of that amendment, and he explicity tells you he didnt mean what the supreme court judge interpreted? Isnt there a contradiction here?
3 Answers
This depends on one's definition of what the law is, including whether one views judges to be bound by the law to produce a particular result.
Under an extreme realist view, the law is whatever happens to be announced to be the law by the highest court.
According to HLA Hart, the law is a social fact, as produced according to the societally accepted rules of recognition, adjudication, and change. If the judge in your hypothetical rejected those, and intentionally deviated from what they knew to be the accepted rules of recognition, adjudication, and change, then this would be a violation of the law.
Of course there are also simple disagreements about what the law is. When a majority of the court pronounces that the law is X, and some dissenting judges "do an opposite interpretation," we do not say that the dissenters violated the law. We might say they were wrong about the law, or they might say the majority was wrong about the law, but neither generally would say the other is violating the law.
As an aside, your hypothetical about originalism omits that originalist judges today post-Scalia adhere to original-public-meaning originalism, not original-intent originalism, so the testimony of the original drafters would not play any special role in an analysis.
In the USA, the Supreme Court defines the law
It would be impossible, both de facto, and de jure, for an opinion of one or more Supreme Court justices to be extra-legal. Certainly this can become a political issue, many people believe they know the One True Interpretation.
As an extra bit of exposition, the belief that there is a single correct interpretation of a US Consitutional issue is a sign of lack of understanding of how both the Constitution and its interpretation work.
-
But Federal judges can be impeached and removedlittleadv– littleadv2025-04-23 16:44:42 +00:00Commented Apr 23 at 16:44
-
This is one philosophical view. It's not the only one.Nate Eldredge– Nate Eldredge2025-04-23 18:22:04 +00:00Commented Apr 23 at 18:22
-
Isn't the law defined by the majority of SCOTUS?Barmar– Barmar2025-04-23 18:23:14 +00:00Commented Apr 23 at 18:23
-
Suppose the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that according to the Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor is Empress-for-Life, and her decrees revoke all other constitutional provisions. Whatever you may think de jure, that certainly wouldn't be the law de facto; she'd be deposed, or perhaps just ignored.Nate Eldredge– Nate Eldredge2025-04-23 18:25:25 +00:00Commented Apr 23 at 18:25
-
1@Barmar the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. It's not reviewable by the courts. But of course in this hypothetical we have long since left the realm of being guided by the actual provisions of the constitution.phoog– phoog2025-04-23 20:14:39 +00:00Commented Apr 23 at 20:14
Judges can make mistakes - that’s not against the law
When people make decisions, sometimes they get it wrong. Also, the decisions the Supreme Court makes are really, really hard - easy decisions don’t get appealed that far or the Court just says “no” if they do.
Of course, the Supreme Court requires a majority of people, typically 5, to make the same type of mistake, but it still happens.
There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that are generally considered to have been “wrongly decided”, but they are still good law. The outcomes of those cases have, arguably, led to the outbreak of the Civil War, permitted racial segregation, and changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Some of these have been found to be wrong by a later Supreme Court, but some still stand as “the law” because, well, you can only screw up a decision on the 2000 Presidential Election once.
They were, from a philosophical point of view, wrong, but they were not unlawful. We have decided that we just have to live with that because, philosophically, although we want the justice system to reach the “right” decision, we also need it to be economical and final.
Corruption
A judge can break the law just like anyone else; just not for actions taken inside the courtroom.
A judge that, for example, took a bribe to decide a case a specific way, would be subject to arrest and imprisonment, but the decision they made would still be binding unless and until it as overturned on appeal (which it definitely should be). However, it is still up to the aggrieved party to make that appeal - maybe that just isn’t worth the cost. The judge would still be a judge until removed.
Whether a Supreme Court decision tainted by corruption could be revisited has never been tested. That would be up to … the Supreme Court.
What the writer meant is irrelevant
Constitutions, statutes, and contracts are interpreted from the words written on the page; not by what the author had in their head when they wrote them. If they didn’t write what they meant, more fool them.
philosophy-of-lawtag over there: "this tag is for questions dealing with the philosphy of the the law and legal system."