{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "So do the supreme court judges ever actually declare rulership of america or do they stay tied to the forms of the court case...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/178634755948/", "html": "<div class=\"question\"><strong>Anonymous</strong> asked: So do the supreme court judges ever actually declare rulership of america or do they stay tied to the forms of the court case for the forseeable</div>\n<p>Stay tied. One of the significant things about the US Supreme Court is the \u201cCases &amp; Controversies\u201d doctrine, that they can only issue decisions in the context of particular suits and cases</p><p>So like if you think a criminal law is unconstitutional you can\u2019t challenge it just for being on the books, seeking an \u201cadvisory opinion\u201d as it\u2019s called, you have to find someone who suffered some harm from it (say being convicted or maybe even arrested or just intimidated away from something) and file suit on that basis</p><p>Because among other things a well-formed suit has to allege a wrong and seek a viable remedy and that can be monkeyed with \u2013 IIRC under Bush the Younger there was someone indefinitely detained in a Navy Brig as a \u201cterrorist\u201d who was about to get to the Supreme Court with a case demanding to be put in the regular jail system</p><p>But before the case could be heard (and generate precedent) the administration transferred him on their own initiative, which meant that the remedy sought was no longer viable (he couldn\u2019t be transferred to where he already was, see) which meant the case was thrown out</p>"}