The Power of the US Supreme Court

[Sétanta]

I think that the American Supreme Court has for many years had far more power than the constitution grants it.

It was founded with the intention to keep the Legislative and Executive Branches in order and prevent them from making unconstitutional laws but for many years now the USSC has used their power in interpreting laws to essentially write new ones.
Examples: Roe vs. Wade made Abortion Legal, something that the Legislature should decide then supported or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, not the other way around.
And the Supreme Court declared the Death Penalty is illegal and then legal again, well again, isn't that up to the Legislature, not the Supreme Court after 200 years of being implemented.

If the SC can randomly decide to change America so dramatically what prevents them from declaring all State Laws unconstitutional

[GambleFish]

I think that the American Supreme Court has for many years had far more power than the constitution grants it.

It was founded with the intention to keep the Legislative and Executive Branches in order and prevent them from making unconstitutional laws but for many years now the USSC has used their power in interpreting laws to essentially write new ones.
Examples: Roe vs. Wade made Abortion Legal, something that the Legislature should decide then supported or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, not the other way around.
And the Supreme Court declared the Death Penalty is illegal and then legal again, well again, isn't that up to the Legislature, not the Supreme Court after 200 years of being implemented.

If the SC can randomly decide to change America so dramatically what prevents them from declaring all State Laws unconstitutional

I would say they are necessary to balance the executive branch (even more so than the legislative)

Look at the domestic spying and such - we need something to balance that.

I would say that the history of the Supreme Court speaks for itself. They havent taken over yet.... so why assume they will?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Mudd, the SC as you said does not have the power to create laws, but it does have the power to set precedent and to interpret laws as to their Constitutionality. It is a tremendously important part of US government, and I can't tell what you'd rather have them do?

You see, they didn't "declare abortion legal," they simply set the precedent that laws banning most forms of abortion are unconstitutional, and thus cannot be written. Precedent and Constitutionality in American lawmaking are just as important as the laws themselves. As Al Thor said, why fear a SC "takover" if its never been a problem before. I would fear a takeover from the Executive branch FAR before I would worry about the judicial branch taking all our state rights away. Evidence already exists that the Executive branch is horning in on the other two branches.

I recall a Congressional hearing over the domestic spying issue, and Alberto Gonzalez said, and I quote, "The President holds your (Congress) opinion in high esteem, and he is more than willing to listen to your suggestions." This is clearly not what the Founders intended, with the Executive branch essentially telling the Legislative Branch to screw off.

[Sétanta]

I am not fearing a takeover.

But mearly questioning the constitutionality of the SC changing laws that have been in existance since the nation was founded. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret new laws, not ones that have been deemed constitutional by many Supreme Courts before.

[hsimoorb]

But mearly questioning the constitutionality of the SC changing laws that have been in existance since the nation was founded. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret new laws, not ones that have been deemed constitutional by many Supreme Courts before.

The SC ainterperets all laws, not just new ones. It's perfectly logical that they can change thier kinds, especialy when new justices are appointed. Also in some cases there are things they haven't decided on yet, it's not like they are dragging thier feet.

Besides, in Roe v Wade they did declare a law unsonctitutional. They didn't make a law.

You see, they didn't "declare abortion legal," they simply set the precedent that laws banning most forms of abortion are unconstitutional, and thus cannot be written. Precedent and Constitutionality in American lawmaking are just as important as the laws themselves.

Like he said.

Anyways, you sa that the legislature should decide how abortion laws are? Well they can, it's called a constitutional amendment. And there isn't an abortion one yet, so the SC has all the power they need to interperet away on abortion rights. Realy I think all this stuff about judicial activism is nonsense.

[Sétanta]

The SC ainterperets all laws, not just new ones. It's perfectly logical that they can change thier kinds, especialy when new justices are appointed. Also in some cases there are things they haven't decided on yet, it's not like they are dragging thier feet.

which is in itself writing a new law. deciding a law is unconstitutional is legalizing its opposite, making it a law in all but name

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Realy I think all this stuff about judicial activism is nonsense.

I agree. I think it stems either from politics, in that people want judges who will make decisions and set precedents that fit in with their view of how America should be, or their moral code, or religious dogma, etc and that anything that doesn't agree with those ideals equals "judicial activism." Or, on the other hand, it stems from ignorance, in that people don't understand why these courts were made in the first place.

In the case of the SC, they are there to make sure that laws are not made that are unconstitutional. Plain and simple. You may think that the precedent set by Roe v. Wade was folly, based on your politics, religious beliefs, or personal moral code. This does not make their decision any less legal based on the powers allotted to them in the Constitution. The Texans who wrote that law violated womens' Constitutional rights, and a precedent needed to be set to prevent legislatures from writing such laws.

I would go out on a limb and suggest that there wouldn't be such tripe of "judicial activism" if a law were made imposing on our free speech and was overturned by the SC as unconstitutional. But it's the same exact principle, just on a more divisive issue.

[Kanaric]

If someone can put a majority of fanatical followers of a president on the supreme court he can easily become a dictator.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

If someone can put a majority of fanatical followers of a president on the supreme court he can easily become a dictator.

That's true, but sense they serve for so long it's unlikely that it'll happen, however not impossible. The example given he though gives me a laugh. Why not mention...

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Virginia
Mapp v. Ohio

[Kanaric]

That's true, but sense they serve for so long it's unlikely that it'll happen, however not impossible. The example given he though gives me a laugh. Why not mention...

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Virginia
Mapp v. Ohio

Ya, something would have to happen to the people. Like assassinations or a bombing, something like that. It could be done though, its just not likely and people would probably know it before hand. Its not like one of those things you can sneak in.

[Farnan]

Dred Scott was an awful decision that helped cause the Civil War...

[imb39]

I'd be interested in Rush's or Oldgamer's view on this.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

I'd be interested in Rush's or Oldgamer's view on this.

No offense but I think those responses would be incredibly predictable.

[imb39]

No offense but I think those responses would be incredibly predictable.

Perhaps, but I would like to see their rationale vis a vis the SC.

[Last Roman]

People think that judicial activism is simply a liberal thing. Not true, there is conservatism activism too. For example, in the recent eminent domain case. The judges took the side of private business, when in reality is was really only meant for public uses (ie, schools, roads, hospitals).

[vikingsiddhu]

I believe that the Supreme Court should be 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 morderate(being the chief justice) It is 9, right?

A conservative or liberal owned court would exert too much power. In the above case, the Supreme Court would be more ideal.

[hsimoorb]

which is in itself writing a new law. deciding a law is unconstitutional is legalizing its opposite, making it a law in all but name

But that's what the SC is supposed to to based on the constitution. It's clearly separated from lawmaking powers. They don't so much as "make laws" as they reconcile law with the constitution. It may seem like they're making laws because so much of thier opinion is wokring precedent. Since they're often called on to point out EXACTALY where the the constitution starts and stops. Anyways, the constitution say the court decided constitutionality, why critisise them for doing thier job?

[Last Roman]

I believe that the Supreme Court should be 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 morderate(being the chief justice) It is 9, right?

A conservative or liberal owned court would exert too much power. In the above case, the Supreme Court would be more ideal.

I think they should all be moderate. They would make much more rational decisions (IMO)

[Kanaric]

I think they should all be moderate. They would make much more rational decisions (IMO)

I agree, but you really can't tell much of the time.