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

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Gray Matters
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Giving Ventures
Mom Wars
3 Martini Lunch
Chicks on The Right
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Back of the Book
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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.
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)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
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.
Looks like a good example!
MODERATOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
You're seeing five of 20 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.