3 Whisky Happy HourThe Ricochet PodcastGLoP CultureBeyond the Polls with Henry OlsenGray MattersDaily SignalThe Erick Erickson ShowGiving VenturesMom Wars3 Martini LunchChicks on The RightParsing Immigration PolicyFederalist Radio HourWhat the Hell Is Going OnFreedom to LearnThe Learning CurveThe Conservative Woman’s GuideHeritage ExplainsNot Dead YetWho Funds that?The Radio Free Hillsdale HourThe Glenn ShowFirst Things PodcastCall Me Back - with Dan SenorHillsdale DialoguesLaw Talk with Epstein, Yoo & CookeThe LibertarianThe Report Card with Nat MalkusThe Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’ConnorThe American IdeaMadison’s NotesConservative Crossroads with Henry OlsenThe Back of the BookMartini ShotThe Dave Carter ShowThe Powerline ShowIn DissentHeard at HeritageSmart Girl PoliticsJames Lileks’ The DinerCase in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and CultureJobMakersOne on One with Robert DoarHomeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeHubwonk

Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

  1. Main Feed/
  2. Was ‘Marbury’ Wrong? And Why Does Baseball Need A Commissioner?
April 24, 2025 at 7:40 AM

Was ‘Marbury’ Wrong? And Why Does Baseball Need A Commissioner?

Rodin
@Rodin

MODERATOR

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Join to bookmark14likesJoin to like20comments

The authority of the judiciary in America stems from the creation of a Supreme Court in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s own rulings about its powers and limits, and congressional enabling statutes for the lesser courts. In the early days of the country, the role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution was an open question. The Court, in a case called Marbury vs Madison, anointed itself as the sole authority. But over the years the Court has limited direct conflict with Congress and the Executive by also creating the “political question” doctrine. This doctrine permits the Court to graciously yield to one or both of its “co-equal” partners by essentially saying it is a matter for voters and not the Court.

The current Court has been slow to employ this card in the recent contretemps between the lesser courts and the Trump administration. Although one would not know it from the media, the Trump administration has not (yet) defied a court order. But lawfare is pushing the president to that point — and that may be the goal of the Progressive Project.

The Court may yet recognize the application of the “political question” to many of the current conflicts to the extent it can’t cite (as they have already done in one case) a specific jurisdictional limit. But every day brings us closer to a “constitutional crisis”. We are not there yet, but, to be clear, it is the courts and not the administration fomenting the crisis.

What is a “constitutional crisis”? It is a conflict between co-equal branches of government when one or more branches exceed their constitutional authority. In Marbury, the Court said it was the ultimate arbiter. But that cannot be. The “political question” doctrine is an implicit admission of this. Failing that, the Court ceases to be an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Which brings us to the second question in the post’s title — why does baseball need a commissioner? They have teams, umpires and a rulebook. Can’t the umpires just run the game? They say when the game is in play. They call balls and strikes. They rule hits and foul balls. They record outs and vouch for the score. They say when the game is over.

Years back the major league umpires threatened to go on strike. Sandy Alderson, then an executive in the commissioner’s office, was quoted as saying, "I don’t know whether this is a threat to be ignored, or an opportunity to be seized.” Chief Justice Roberts, don’t make President Trump go all Sandy Alderson on you.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (20)

Sign in to commentSign in
  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Arahant@Arahant·1y
    1. Yes.
    2. They do not need one. They have one because historically, they couldn't keep their noses clean (Black Sox Scandal), so the owners appointed a judge to wipe their dirty, little noses for them.
  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Susan Quinn@SusanQuinn·1y

    I'm fascinated by the political question doctrine; I'd never heard of it. So what would actually occur if the decision is supposed to go back to the voters--would it be included in an election? Or a Constitutional Convention?

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Arahant@Arahant·1y
    ReplyingtoSusan Quinn

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I’m fascinated by the political question doctrine; I’d never heard of it. So what would actually occur if the decision is supposed to go back to the voters–would it be included in an election? Or a Constitutional Convention?

    It would depend on the ruling that was in question. They might vacate the lower court's ruling and say, "Not our (the courts) problem." Roe v. Wade was an example that should have been decided by the people. Eventually, that bad ruling was overturned and went back to the individual states.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Susan Quinn@SusanQuinn·1y
    ReplyingtoArahant

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I’m fascinated by the political question doctrine; I’d never heard of it. So what would actually occur if the decision is supposed to go back to the voters–would it be included in an election? Or a Constitutional Convention?

    Arahant (View Comment):

    It would depend on the ruling that was in question. They might vacate the lower court’s ruling and say, “Not our (the courts) problem.” Roe v. Wade was an example that should have been decided by the people. Eventually, that bad ruling was overturned and went back to the individual states.

    Looks like a good example!

  • MODERATOR

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Rodin@Rodin·1y
    ReplyingtoSusan Quinn

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I’m fascinated by the political question doctrine; I’d never heard of it. So what would actually occur if the decision is supposed to go back to the voters–would it be included in an election? Or a Constitutional Convention?

    law.cornell.edu

    Open link

    Basically they say “if this is a problem, it’s not one for us to solve”. It doesn’t move the problem anywhere, it’s just takes the courts out of it.

Scroll for later comments
+15 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 20 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.

Trending

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Join Ricochet

Get the Ricochet app

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
  • •
  • •