Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court decided it had the power of judicial review and could decide whether an act of Congress was unconstitutional or not.
Marbury was necessary to implement the terms of the Constitution. Otherwise the judicial branch would be effectively powerless.
The SCOTUS has a very limited range of power, but within that range, it has the final say.
The problem with the Supreme Court is that, they have declared they are the ultimate arbiter of all things constitutional or unconstitutional.
And this is balanced by the ability of Congress to amend the Constitution and change what is unconstitutional to Constitutional. Who else would you suggest decide constitutionality? Congress and the President are poor candidates since they are bound by political influence and their constituents. That's why SCOTUS justices are appointed, not elected. To reduce bias and influence from the people. While they certainly do have their biases (what human doesn't), they don't have to rule based on ensuring the people keep them on the bench.
Quote:
Therefore, the Supreme Court can nullify anything and everything the other two branches of government decide to do.
No they can't. The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction. Only in cases involving 2 or more states or diplomats does the Supreme Court have ultimate authority. Every other issue must come to the court through the appellate process, and they only hear about 1% of cases that they are asked to rule on.
Quote:
Do the other branches have that power?
Congress has the power to overrule any SCOTUS decision by changing the Constitution. Very hard to do, but still an option.
Quote:
Only No. And even worse, the Supreme Court is generally hesitant to overrule any of its previous rulings. So basically, once a ruling is made, its stuck.
This is called stare decisis. It's the foundation of common law. A courts decision is binding on all lower courts, and unless there is a strong compelling reason, the court who made the decision has no reason to go against their own precedent. This is how case law works.
Quote:
What Congress can do is try to impeach the Supreme Court justices. But, everyone knows Supreme Court justices have been legislating from the bench since the Supreme Court began, yet, theres not a single Supreme Court justice that has ever been removed from office.
Why would they be impeached for doing their job? Judges are supposed to set precedent which serves as the law. It's called Common Law.
Quote:
If we look at the last time there was any actual public desire to correct the actions of the Supreme Court by the other branches of government, it was FDR back in the 1930's. Of course, what he was going to do was add six more Supreme Court justices(from 9 to 15), which he would appoint and Congress would confirm. And guess what? The only reason he was going to do that was because he was going to appoint only Supreme Court justices that would rule his programs to be constitutional.
Do you see why that is a problem?
Not really, since the Court can ignore the president's attempts to manipulate the system. They may not be completely unbiased, but find me any legal system that is.
Quote:
My argument is not that there shouldn't be a Supreme Court. What I am saying is that, we should not invest so much power in so few people, especially since we know that the Supreme Court has a long history of abusing that power.
So what is the Supreme Court supposed to do if not interpret the Constitution? Who is going to stop unconstitutional laws without them?
And this is balanced by the ability of Congress to amend the Constitution and change what is unconstitutional to Constitutional. Who else would you suggest decide constitutionality? Congress and the President are poor candidates since they are bound by political influence and their constituents. That's why SCOTUS justices are appointed, not elected. To reduce bias and influence from the people. While they certainly do have their biases (what human doesn't), they don't have to rule based on ensuring the people keep them on the bench.
No they can't. The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction. Only in cases involving 2 or more states or diplomats does the Supreme Court have ultimate authority. Every other issue must come to the court through the appellate process, and they only hear about 1% of cases that they are asked to rule on.
Congress has the power to overrule any SCOTUS decision by changing the Constitution. Very hard to do, but still an option.
This is called stare decisis. It's the foundation of common law. A courts decision is binding on all lower courts, and unless there is a strong compelling reason, the court who made the decision has no reason to go against their own precedent. This is how case law works.
Why would they be impeached for doing their job? Judges are supposed to set precedent which serves as the law. It's called Common Law.
Not really, since the Court can ignore the president's attempts to manipulate the system. They may not be completely unbiased, but find me any legal system that is.
So what is the Supreme Court supposed to do if not interpret the Constitution? Who is going to stop unconstitutional laws without them?
The President also has the authority to hold laws, or parts of a law, unconstitutional through Signing Statements. As with Maybury v. Madison, this is also a self-imposed authority that is not specifically granted by the US Constitution. However, Signing Statements have been used by every President since President Monroe.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) held that the President's actions in defiance of the statute had been lawful. The President's constitutional duty does not require them to execute unconstitutional statutes, nor does it require the President to execute unconstitutional statutes provisionally, against the day they are held to be unconstitutional by the courts. If the President's interpretation of a statute's unconstitutionality is reasonable, the court will defer to the President's interpretation.
Which would mean interracial marriage would still be illegal, homosexuality would be a capital offense, women would not have any rights in marriage, etc.
The people should not determine constitutionality. They aren't smart enough, and it leads to tyranny of the majority. No thanks.
Which would mean interracial marriage would still be illegal, homosexuality would be a capital offense, women would not have any rights in marriage, etc.
The people should not determine constitutionality. They aren't smart enough, and it leads to tyranny of the majority. No thanks.
But a handful of lawyers are smart enough...interesting.
But a handful of lawyers are smart enough...interesting.
Yes. Supreme Court Justices are some of the most brilliant legal scholars on the planet. In practice, you have to graduate from one of the 2 top law schools in the world at the top of your class and on law review to even have a shot at the SCOTUS. Beyond that, you better get a SCOTUS clerkship after school and work as a federal judge or prosecutor with a stellar record to be in consideration. 70% of Americans can't even name at least 3 people who are even on the Supreme Court, let alone understand legalese and constitutional law.
We are not a democracy. The general population should never have the power to decide whether other people deserve rights or not. Americans as a whole are not particularly intelligent. At least 40% of the population still believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with man, and that evolution is wrong. People that poorly educated have no business anywhere near legal analysis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
