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.
What an odd statement, given the fact that Supreme Court justices are removed from democratic constraints and have life tenure. Those nine justices are the closest thing to a dictatorship that we have in America.
Not really. The Supreme Court only has power until the anger the president and senate enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be 9 judges it has varied over time and the number 9 is simply the result of an 1860s Senate not wanting Johnson to appoint judges. If the Supreme Court outraged the Senate and President the president could just appoint 10 new judges, get them confirmed by the Senate and the 9 judges of the SC would be powerless.
Not really. The Supreme Court only has power until the anger the president and senate enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be 9 judges it has varied over time and the number 9 is simply the result of an 1860s Senate not wanting Johnson to appoint judges. If the Supreme Court outraged the Senate and President the president could just appoint 10 new judges, get them confirmed by the Senate and the 9 judges of the SC would be powerless.
FDR wanted to do this very thing in the 30s when the supreme court kept overturning his legislative efforts. his problem was that he would have had the get the law establishing the number of scotus judges changed, and that meant going through congress. he threatened to do just that many times, but never did it.
by the way, for you righties, can you quit with the "he upholds the constitution" crap. He is a republican that will go conservative the majority of the time. Its no different than the democratic supreme court justices.
oh please.. they all are supposed to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution. If they all viewed the constitution n the same viewpoint, we'd only need 1 judge, or they'd all be 9-0 verdicts.
Just because you disagree with the results, doesnt mean they arent upholding the Constitution.
FDR wanted to do this very thing in the 30s when the supreme court kept overturning his legislative efforts. his problem was that he would have had the get the law establishing the number of scotus judges changed, and that meant going through congress. he threatened to do just that many times, but never did it.
He ended up not needing to though since Van Devanter retired and Roberts switched his vote giving Roosevelt a 5-4 majority.
You need to go back to school. The executive branch is not supposed to be legislating through executive orders or through its cabinet departments.
You have precisely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Every president has issued executive orders since George Washington issued the first just three months into his first term. It is impossible to run an executive branch without them.
Clue #1: US laws are of four types.
A) Constitutional law, as written in the Constitution itself.
B) Statutory law, written by the legislative branch primarily for the purpose of performing their duties under the Constitutional.
C) Regulatory law, written by departments of the executive branch for the purposes of implementing and executing statutory law.
D) Common law, created by the judicial branch via the process of judicial decision and stare decisis.
All three branches create law. All three branches have always created law. This is how our system was designed by the framers of our constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
The court is supposed to rule on constitutionality and the executive branch is to abide by the ruling.
Yes, that is also one of the jobs of the judicial branch. But in case you never noticed, most of the judicial branch's actual work never involves a constitutional question at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
That executive is the branch doing the usurping these days. If there wasn't an election coming soon, an impeachment would be in order.
You really should stop deferring to people who are probably no smarter and certainly far less honest than you and read the Constitution yourself. You are being misled by right wing blowhards.
oh please.. they all are supposed to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution. If they all viewed the constitution n the same viewpoint, we'd only need 1 judge, or they'd all be 9-0 verdicts.
Just because you disagree with the results, doesnt mean they arent upholding the Constitution.
and because of that, we have one of the justices who is considered to be the swing vote. republican will interpret the law from a conservative point of view, and the democrats will do it from their liberal point of view. They interpret the constitution the way they want to see it. That doesnt bother me at all. If we had 5 liberal justices, that entire law would have been thrown out.
Excellent article here about this man. He's supposed to be impartial, but represents the right-leaning Roberts contingent that is biased. He needs to resign, enabling the President to put someone in there who is far more capable.
Obama started the public war with the Supreme Court in the very begining of his Presidency at the State of The Union address. It was rude, it was embarrassing and it was ridiculously amateurish just like every war he starts with different groups of people. I would say more than half of the mistakes Obama makes are the mistakes a rookie first line manager makes and it's the fault of people who vote for a candidate with no executive experience for the biggest leadership job in the country. He's not the only candidate that's ever had zero executive experience, and they shouldn't get the job, either, but right now he's the one in our face because you elected him. In private industry he wouldn't have gotten his resume-lite to the interview stage for a CEO position.
Look, I get people excited about a man of color in the White House but couldn't you have picked a governor, a mayor of a large city, a general, a CEO, the head of a large non-profit, to be that person?
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.
