Regarding the Supreme Court

2 - The Solution Under a Councilist Context

Now that the role of a renewed Supreme Court has been drafted for the material conditions of the present United States, it is important to maintain a solid grasp of the future we must aim to create. Simply put, the solution provided in the previous section is not the final objective in regards to the concept of a supreme court. Rather, it is the ideal means of rectifying the undemocratic nature of the institution within the context and conditions of the United States in 2022. Therefore, whilst it is important to build parliamentary sovereignty in order to better the lives of working people, progress should not stop there.

In a councilist future a supreme court, or indeed, any constitutional court, would be rendered obsolete. The first and foremost goal of councilism is the total democratisation of politics and economics. Therefore, having a court that decides what is and isn't allowed would only serve to impede the will of the people. As a result, such institutions would simply not exist, and their duties would be distributed amongst the population.

Let us look at this with context. At present, in the United States, the Supreme Court has the power to rule on any case brought before them, though their focus is on questions of constitutionality so that shall be our focus. Cases regarding these matters could be analysed in courts, and indeed cases that raise questions due to legal vagueness or contradictions will eventually appear. Such cases could then bring about legislation to clarify the law(s) in question if the people have the intrigue. Bills seeking to address these problems would then be proposed and voted on by the affected population(s) whilst the case either continues to be argued or a temporary solution is made until the law changes. Once a resolution is passed, a ruling can then be made on the original case with the newfound clarification made for and by the people.

One question may be who is allowed to vote on these matters. This is an excellent question with a varied answer. On a national level, such as a case like the US' Roe v Wade or Citizens United v FEC, the entire nation is involved with the outcome of the case. As such, each and every person within the country would have the right to vote on the matter. In other situations, however, the case may be restricted to a regional issue. Local laws contradicting federal laws or an inter-subdivision conflict do not necessarily concern the entirety of the nation. Cases like the US' Mcculloch v Maryland or New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen would fall under this category. Of course, cases like these can have far-reaching legal consequences that go beyond the scope of the original question. As such, the people would still be at liberty to petition and hold a referendum on legislation regarding these issues either in their own localities or on a national level.

A followup question may then ask "who decides if a case is voted on by the entire population or the local population?" That would be decided by the people. When establishing the foundational documents of the councilist society, the matter of what constitutes a "national issue" and a "regional issue" would be voted on via a referendum or, if a referendum is not possible, democratically elected workers' council representatives . This election/series of elections would decide matters like the definitions of both terms and any exceptions to the aforementioned definitions. Of course, if and when future generations are unsatisfied with the older definitions, they would have the right to hold a new vote and amend or replace the antiquated definitions with updated ones. These elections to update and replace original foundational documents would necessarily be federal in nature, and thus would be voted on by everyone within the nation.

In summary, what does this mean? Firstly, supreme courts would contradict the foundational ideas of a councilist republic, and thus would not exist. Instead, the people could vote to create legislation in response to legal questions posed in courtrooms. Who gets to vote on these matters would be decided on the scope of the case, though any subdivision could choose to vote on similar bills within their borders regardless of where the original case is. Who gets to vote on what matters would be defined in the foundational documents of the nation, with the caveat that the people can hold a referendum to change said definitions at any time.

All of this serves a singular purpose: to ensure a genuinely democratic society wherein every person has a voice. No longer would they be held back by outdated institutions and reactionary legislation. No longer would the voices of working peoples be cast aside. No longer would the will of the few outweigh the wills and needs of the many. Just as there will be no lords or masters, there will be no serfs or slaves.