Hugabear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:05 PM
Original message |
Where are the checks and balances for the Supreme Court? |
|
The President can veto legislation from Congress, and Congress can override a veto. Therefore, there is a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branch. But where is there a check against the SCOTUS?
I know that technically, there are checks. The President has to appoint the justices, and Congress must confirm them. And there can be amendments added to the Constitution, which would bypass the Supreme Court altogether. On the first "check", that only works before they're on the bench. Once they're on the bench, there doesn't seem to be anything that Congress or the President can do. And as for passing a constitutional amendment - that does seem a tad bit unrealistic, considering just how hard it is to get one of those things passed.
So basically, a heavily conservative Supreme Court could pass a ruling like they did today, saying that corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as individuals, and there's not jack shit that can be done?
|
hobbit709
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The slow unlikely processes of impeachment or amendment |
flamingdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
hobbit709
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
14. How many amendments are there? |
|
and how many times has a sitting judge been impeached. It can happen but the chances are slim and they have to have some kind of reason, not just because people don't like a decision
But impeachment and death are the only ways to remove a justice.
|
Hosnon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
20. We could dilute the power of these five Justices by packing the Court. |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 08:36 AM by Hosnon
However, I'm not sure that is the wisest solution, and based on what I've seen from Obama so far, that would be waaay too aggressive for him.
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. Impeachment really doesn't apply here. |
|
They've committed neither High Crime nor Misdemeanor. Just bad judicial activism.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Constitution can be Amended - that's the Congressional check on the Judiciary. |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 07:08 PM by ThomWV
|
d_b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
Ganja Ninja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
17. Perhaps they ought to amend it to put term limits on SC judges. n/t |
TxRider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Congress needs to pass new laws, or amend the constitution.
SCOTUS just interprets the law and constitution, Congress writes them.
|
atmame77
(22 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Scalia is a chain smoker |
|
To My understanding Scalia is a chain smoker, Roberts is a epileptic, Thomas is a idiot, Kennedy is constipated, Alito; Hmm. I bet he likes little boys.
Scalia is riddled with lung tumors. Roberts can always fall and hit His head.
Doug
|
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Plant child porn on them and impeach them for it. nt |
scarletwoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I'm all for trying voodoo dolls. |
|
Other than that, it's deus ex machina. And that will probably involve a very long wait.
|
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:54 PM
Response to Original message |
10. The limits of the American people's tolerance and submission |
Unvanguard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
11. SCOTUS is limited to enforcing constitutional provisions. |
|
So their overall policy impact is far less than, say, that of Congress or the President.
|
ManiacJoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message |
12. SC budget is from Congress. |
|
Pres nominates the judges.
|
FreeJoe
(331 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 08:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If it was easy to block court decisions, we might have integrated schools (Brown), Miranda rights, a guarantee of legal representation (Gideon), or the right to choose (Roe).
Honestly, I'm with the SC on this case. I'm a big first amendment supporter and the law never felt right to me. I'm with the ACLU on this one.
|
crazyjoe
(921 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. what do you mean ACLU ? they support this decision? |
|
I didn't hear anything about that
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
First Amendment absolutists.
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. Without the ACLU, it likely would never have gotten to the SCOTUS. nt |
Hosnon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message |
18. The most effective check is the Court's inability to rule on issues of its choice. |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 07:55 AM by Hosnon
The Supreme Court can't decide tomorrow to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage. A suit must be filed and work its way up through the federal court system. Then, 4 of the justices must vote to hear the case. They basically sit at the bottom of a giant Plinko game. Any justice with a personal agenda can only sit and wait for a case to land at the Court's feet (and then he or she must be in the majority and be selected by the CJ to author the opinion).
I don't think the other checks really limit the Court's power in any real, day-to-day way. But the structural limitation placed on the Court is more than enough, in my opinion. If the Court fails in a big way, then we can amend the constitution to address the ruling (e.g., the XVIth Amendment), increase the number of justices, or impeach the sitting members.
To me, it's time for a constitutional amendment defining the rights of corporations.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:44 AM
Response to Original message |