Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
The Court is suppose to show some deference to the other branches of the government.
|
The court should never show deference, and doesn't have to, since the Judicial Branch is equal to the Legislative Branch, which is equal to the Executive Branch.
That is what is meant by "division of power."
Each Branch is equal, with none more powerful than the other.
It is absurd to even suggest that the Judicial Branch show deference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
SCOTUS overturned 40 years of precedent in Janus, they made law in that case.
|
For more than 40 years the Supreme Court precedent was that wire-taps do not require a warrant.
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564 (1928)
held that telephone wiretaps are not forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.
As incredible as it might seem, Holmes and Brandeis agreed that the 14th Amendment allowed wire taps.
That was ultimately overruled -- about forty years later -- by
Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 64, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1886 (1967) (Douglas, J., concurring) ("I join the opinion of the Court because at long last it overrules
sub silentio Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, and its offspring and brings wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping fully within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.") and by
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 362, n., 88 S.Ct. 507, 517 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("... today's decision must be recognized as overruling
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, which essentially rested on the ground that conversations were not subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.").
Shall we return to the precedent set in
Olmstead?
Or, are you willing to admit that the Supreme Court is not infallible, and sometimes they err when setting precedents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Not really. The Court can decide cases using the constitution or laws, but the power to declare laws unconstitutional or judicial review is not explicitly granted in that article or any other in the constitution.
|
Judicial Review is initiated upon the filing of a complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue.
The courts apply strict scrutiny in all cases where race, ethnicity or national origin is involved in order to ensure compliance with the 14th Amendment.
Courts apply intermediate scrutiny in cases involving gender or children.
For all other cases, a rational-basis test is applied.
To conform with the 5th Amendment, courts consider both procedural due process and substantive due process. The difference is that substantive due process relates to the basic fairness of laws, because the government must have a compelling interest to place restrictions on an individual's liberties or property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
How does the SC enforce their rulings against government intrusion, if the other 2 branches are in bed with each other, in a super majority?
|
The Court levies fines, issues contempt citations or takes other relevant actions, like issuing injunctions.
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.
