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.
The size of the Supreme Court is nine justices, whose salaries may not be diminished under the Constitution; and such staff personnel as the court may hire each judicial term.
I'm sure that the justices of the Supreme Court will be waiting with bated breath for your "brilliant" amicus brief that corrects the errors of their thinking.
in other words you have no argument for increasing the size of the scotus, so you resort to impuning my character. got it.
You have no grounds to criticize the decisions of the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and is binding as law. To put it simply for you: as a matter of law, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Get used to it.
The only thing lacking in this Supreme Court is brainpower , this sorry collection of judges should never hear a case, let alone have the power to make laws. I know, I know, only Congress can make laws, but when these idiots (mostly Roberts) decided that forcing people to buy health insurance was a "Tax" , they made it a law.
Well there you go. There's your problem right there. When you write, "I know, I know, only Congress can make laws" you are only actually saying "I know, I know... essentially nothing about who can or cannot make laws."
Under our Constitution there are four different sources of law.
1) At the base is Constitutional law from which all other laws derive and to which all other laws must conform.
2) Next comes "statutory law" which is created by the legislature under the authority of Article I of the Constitution. When in conflict, all statutory law must concede to Constitutional law.
3) Next comes "regulatory law" which is created by the executive branch under the authority of Article II of the Constitution. When in conflict, all regulatory law must concede to statutory and Constitutional law.
4) Finally comes the "common law" which is created by the judicial branch under the authority of Article III of the Constitution. When in conflict, all common law must concede to regulatory, statutory and Constitutional law.
Supreme court - politicians wearing robes, the number of justices is irrelevant as they almost without exception weigh in on the side of government.
Funny that a so called conservative justice cast the deciding vote for obabamcare.
Well there you go. There's your problem right there. When you write, "I know, I know, only Congress can make laws" you are only actually saying "I know, I know... essentially nothing about who can or cannot make laws."
Under our Constitution there are four different sources of law.
1) At the base is Constitutional law from which all other laws derive and to which all other laws must conform.
2) Next comes "statutory law" which is created by the legislature under the authority of Article I of the Constitution. When in conflict, all statutory law must concede to Constitutional law.
3) Next comes "regulatory law" which is created by the executive branch under the authority of Article II of the Constitution. When in conflict, all regulatory law must concede to statutory and Constitutional law.
4) Finally comes the "common law" which is created by the judicial branch under the authority of Article III of the Constitution. When in conflict, all common law must concede to regulatory, statutory and Constitutional law.
All three branches of government make law.
Your right about what you say, BUT- the SC does not "make laws" it interprets them to be constitutional or not, it does not initiate any laws. The executive branch cannot make any law, it can write or request (for a lack of a better term) a law, but ONLY congress can make it a law.
Your right about what you say, BUT- the SC does not "make laws" it interprets them to be constitutional or not, it does not initiate any laws.
Those are two different things, and the Supreme Court does both at different times. You need to look up "common law." It not only is law that is absolutely "initiated" by the courts, but we inherited a vast amount of our law from courts that weren't even American, and the Constitution itself is derived mostly from the English common law that pre-existed the formation of our nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodpete
The executive branch cannot make any law, it can write or request (for a lack of a better term) a law, but ONLY congress can make it a law.
Again, nonsense. Have you never heard of a federal rule or regulation? Have you never heard of an executive order? Those are not statutes, but it would not serve you well to labor under the misconception that they were not laws.
Your right about what you say, BUT- the SC does not "make laws" it interprets them to be constitutional or not, it does not initiate any laws. The executive branch cannot make any law, it can write or request (for a lack of a better term) a law, but ONLY congress can make it a law.
It can rule that the second amendment is unconstitutional!
the scotus, which deals only with constitutionality of the laws brought before them.
The Supreme Court does not sit only to deal with the constitutionality of the laws brought before it. Interpreting the Constitution is an ancillary function of the SC. The SC is like any other court in the US - it simply decides cases. It chooses only the most important cases, and by virtue of being the highest (federal) court in the land, its holdings often do decide issues of constitutionality.
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.