Ron DeSantis

Rank 21 of 47

Score 34

The Article III-conferred judicial duty is to decide “cases and controversies.” Federal courts do not have roving authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of congressional acts absent a live case.

Once a case is presented, the court may have to make a judgment as to

James Anthony

@jamesanthony_us

23d

@RonDeSantis The Marbury opinion included that judges have a duty to interpret constitutionality.

The judges naturally were looking after their own interests.

But by the identical logic, legislators and executives in all jurisdictions equally have a duty to interpret constitutionality.

12/6/2025, 8:24:49 PM

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the role of federal courts and the concept of judicial review, referencing historical debates and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. It addresses public concerns about the balance of power among branches of government, making it a part of public discourse.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a legal interpretation, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by discussing historical and constitutional interpretations, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in a constructive dialogue about judicial review without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds free speech by responsibly discussing constitutional issues, aligning with the principle of using one's platform responsibly. [+1]