[Fetowip]

The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, It isn't supposed to be, and I challenge this statement.
Checks and balances.

[vdw4Epsi]

*hopes someone drops by to argue this is actually a pretty good idea*

[carinsurancess]

Doesn't sound like it.

Given that judges will eventually decide its constitutionality, what the constitution has to do with things is sort of questionable, though.

[bMc8F9ZI]

I would definatly agree with the statement the the Judicial is the weakest branch, for one that WAS the intent when the constitution was writen (the whole co-equal triumvate idea came later). The legislature can legaly pass laws that determin practicaly every aspect of how the Judicial System is run. The executive can pardon individuals of any crime. These are very big checks, the judicial checks of striking down unconstitutional legislation is quite narrow and used very infrequently, they also must have a case brought to them before any such ruling can be made. Thus any court desision is an inherently passive, some outside group (ACLU) must act first before the court can act, no other branch has such restrictions, they are "first movers" in a sense. The judicial function of prosicuting individuals for crimes is'nt an effective check on excesses of the other branches, public opinion will determin what party remains in power which is far more important then any individual legislator or executive. Basicaly the Legislative branch can change the rules and take the rug out from under the Judicial if it so desires. And now for the funny part.

Legislative + Executive Branch: Send the Prisoners to Guantanimo

Judicial Branch: But we had a deal!

Legislative + Executive: I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further

[indentKew]

The Legislative was supposed to be the most powerful branch, which is why there are two legislatures, so they check each other.

[CalBettaulp]

But he is right that the legislature was supposed to be the most powerful branch.

[adariseediups]

just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

[GOLAGLULT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nope... especially not for federal judges. For state judges, the courts can invoke that the Constitution says each state has to guarantee a republican form of government and they may claim that an independent judiciary is necessary for that. That sounds weak.

[911_993_911]

Conservatives attack the Judicial branch because it is the only branch of goverment they dont currently control.

That's not entirely true. Most of the federal judges in office now have been appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Clinton had a good chunk of time to appoint judges, but 8 years compared to 18 years (so far) in the last 26 years won't get a majority of judges of your political ilk.

[eliniaguilefp7m]

So which cell block will the 9th Circuit be thrown in?

[MackBranon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So which cell block will the 9th Circuit be thrown in? The 9th Circuit will be in the cell on the left.
The DC Circuit will be in the cell on the right.

[CtEkM8Vq]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The judiciary today is far more powerful than it was ever intended to be, So is the Presidency, which has become the most powerful branch of government, which it was never intended to be.

[leijggeds]

Indeed. If we want to prevent people from feeding others, by God, its our right!

Activist judges

[Spongebob]

The Presidency hasn't been checked since Nixon, and only then because his conducts was so egregious.

The Courts only have as much power as Congress allows. If they don't want lifetime judges, they can change it. They can change the composition of the courts, what the courts are allowed to hear, pretty much anything except that SCOTUS has to exist and that it has original jurisdiction in two types of cases. The Courts are still exceptionally weak.

[Bill-Watson]

The Courts only have as much power as Congress allows. If they don't want lifetime judges, they can change it. They can change the composition of the courts, what the courts are allowed to hear, pretty much anything except that SCOTUS has to exist and that it has original jurisdiction in two types of cases.

What can Congress do to overrule a Supreme Court decision that it doesn't approve of?

[Dyerryjex]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What can Congress do to overrule a Supreme Court decision that it doesn't approve of? Quite a bit, actually. Congress could pass a law requiring all SCOTUS judges to retire immediately. They could pass a law removing the subject from their jurisdiction, and pass another law. They could increase the number of justices. Usually, it only requires a discussion of what Congress might do as it passes a law again to chasten the courts. Even the authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional is a power Congress allows the Courts to have and is not an inherent power. However, for all partisan blustering, neither side really wants to mess with the Courts politically, cuz they know its in their best interests not to.

[RilmAlime67]

Most judges making that type of decision are elected. So vote the bum out, if you disagree. Sure you have some cases overturned on appeal, but those are by a vast majority chalked up to errors by the lower court How about some actual accountability? If an employee screws up you can fire him, but if his screw up causes you harm and suffering you can sue for damages. If he really screws up he might end up in jail...

[zU8KbeIU]

Yeah, lets just forget about having an independent judiciary. Just make 'em another political branch which doesn't even have to pretend they are being objective... just that they are pandering to the right party...

(btw, I'm being HIGHLY sarcastic. I think elected judges are an utterly horrible idea. There was a reason the founders of the US republic came up with appointments for life; so that judges could make unpopular decisions that the law demanded without being punished by an uneducated mob)

[Breilopmil]

Well they aren't now and because the politics (ie, as in playing to interest groups to keep your job) ends after you appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. Then they are free to decide cases in whatever way they feel is correct without having to make some group happy.

Before that stage, however, it is very political, no doubt, as judges are looking to move up the ladder. Though the status of the high bench makes it different than just another political branch.

[xesvideo]

Making them personally responsible for their rulings, beyond being voted out of office, will turn this into more of a police state. Wow, if they're being voted out of office for a major screw up, I imagine that major screw up left victims behind. So we're becoming more of a police state if the victims can sue for damages? Seems to me just the opposite... Police states are not enamored with the notion of letting the little people get back at govt officials.