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 believe the answer has to be yes, especially in the current context of a divided court with frequent 5-4 rulings. The justice has a lifetime appointment; the president has eight years max. The SCOTUS can overrule a president, but it's tough for a president to overrule the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS brought us such sea-change rulings as Citizens United (overturned campaign finance restrictions), Heller (restricted gun regulations) and Janus (restricted public sector unions). What comparable sea-change actions have recent presidents accomplished? The SCOTUS even had the power to overturn Obamacare, although they decided not to do so.
The only advantage the president has is that a justice is one of nine, whereas he is 'one of one' (if you will).
The obvious question is whether this is a good situation, and what might be done to even the scales. From everything I've read about the framing of the Constitution, this was not what the framers intended. If anything, they would have wished that the legislative branch be 'first among equals' (if you will).
Not just Supreme Court Justice but any federal judge or any judge is more powerful that the President or executive branch and legislator when they are not originalist and so override the will of the executive and legislator.
The system put in place by those a couple of centuries ago made sure that no one has unchecked power. It is designed into our system... along with the electoral college.
The system put in place by those a couple of centuries ago made sure that no one has unchecked power. It is designed into our system... along with the electoral college.
The judiciary has unchecked power as long as they make some mental gymnastic claim that's what the law or constitution means unless the legislator steps in to check it but it never does.
The SCOTUS has become a partisan political body, as evidenced by all the 5-4 votes. They all read from the same Constitution, but the votes invariably and magically line up behind either the Republican or Democratic party positions. Janus and [i]Heller] are perfect examples of this.
edit: and we could add, the confirmation process shows the same. It's like the iron-filings experiments that we all did in 5th grade science class.
A President can make a decision and often needs support from congress.
The SCOTUS makes a decision and its law whether people support it or not.
Exactly. Which makes me wonder who said they are less powerful. It's just not true.
The ONLY restraint that has been put on Trump is through the courts. Republicans have not constrained him in the least. Without the courts, the one party rule we have in this country would be a complete dictatorship.
Exactly. Which makes me wonder who said they are less powerful. It's just not true.
The ONLY restraint that has been put on Trump is through the courts. Republicans have not constrained him in the least. Without the courts, the one party rule we have in this country would be a complete dictatorship.
But Trump has been successful in SCOTUS. Noticed you conveniently left that out. Problem we have are those few Federal courts cherry picked for cases such as the travel ban but then they’re overturned in Trump’s favor by SCOTUS. So, ultimately you’re wrong if you look at final adjudication after all appeals exhausted.
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.