There are 3 choices, 4 votes for Xelgaroth's debate

The United States Supreme Court

In the United States, there are three branches of government. This is basic information that children learn in school: three branches, each, theoretically, containing the power to check and balance each other, such that there is a "balance of power", as it were. These three are the Executive, including the Presidency and the various offices associated therewith, the Legislative, which is to say, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the third is the Judiciary, primarily composed of the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is a group of nine judges, or justices, who determine whether a law is constitutional-- that is, it is their job to red through a law and declare it to be in keeping with the limitations, perimissions, conditions, and requirements of the U.S. Constitution. These nine justices are appointed by the currently presiding executive-- the president-- and have a tenure that expires upon either retirement, mental disabilility, or death; lifetime tenure.

Which brings me to my point.

I only gave this rudimentary explanation of U.S. political structure to offer a background for non-United States citizens, who may or may not know how the Judiciary functions. My question is merely thus: What is your opinion on the structure of the United States Supreme Court? Does it have too much power? Too little? Just enough? Do you agree with lifetime tenures for justices? Do you agree with the presidential appointment system? What, in short, do you think of the whole arrangement?

I must respectfully ask that you not sidetrack this debate with discussions of the other branches of government and/or members therein, unless doing so be prudent to the discussion of the United States Supreme Court, which is the topic of discussion here. Other than that, have at it!
  • I believe it to have too much power.
    You have, essentially, placed the power to make or break any law into the hands of nine men and women, persons whom the people have neither elected nor approved, and whose offices last unto death. This, to me, is hardly the consent of the governed. No, they do not have to worry about elections, but can this still remain more or less true if their terms are long enough? For example, what I might suggest is that a given justice has a tenure of, say, ten to twelve years, and that upon the expiration of this term he must be re-submitted to the currently existing Senate for approval. I am not saying he need be elected TOTALLY by popular/electoral vote; that would take quite a bit of time and money, though I believe if this were the way it was arranged it would nevertheless be favourable to the current system.

    I also feel that there should be some sort of Congressional veto power over so-called "judicial review"; I believe there ought to be a provision under which the Legislative branch can override a judicial ruling. I feel it would have to be a rather substantial majority in order to do it-- say, three fifths, similar to that of Congressional counter-veto power over a Presidential veto. I must wonder: under the current system, what is it that "checks" the Supreme Court? The president can check congress by refusing to sign a law they pass, and they in turn may check him by overriding his veto, and in turn the Court may override them by declaring the law unconstitutional, but who, I ask, checks them? To my knowledge, nothing. There exists no provision that I know of by which the power of the Supreme Court may be kept in check. Oh, there is always impeachment, but that is an entirely different thing from what I mean. The president can veto Congress without sacking the entire congressional body. Congress can override the president without throwing him out of off office. But there exists no system under which Congress can check the power of the existing Court without changing its makeup. We, the three hundred million citizens of the United States, place our deepest faith in nine individuals, nine human, fallible individuals, that they will regard every law impartially and objectively, and will only strike down those laws that genuinely contradict the terms of the Constitution. Though it may sound cynical, I believe that so many ought never to put so much trust in so few.

    Furthermore, why do we not dispense with presidential appointment? Why should a president, whose time in office is transient and fleeting, at a maximum eight years, be able to appoint individuals whose term in office will long outlast his own? I don't care who the president is, it seems to me that no one who will only be in office four four years should appoint people who will be in office for as much as fifty or more. Say president Bush appoints a justice, and his decision was a poor one. Current president Obama can do little to remedy the decision, aside from recommend impeachment charges. I realize that these Justices must also be approved by the Senate, but again, of what is the Senate composed? Individuals whose terms last no more than six years. In twelve years, a lot can change, and judgments may change with regard to the justices appointed by senators no longer in office. Once more, aside from impeachment, there is little to be done.

    Even if, as the argument goes, they supposedly have no "political agenda", since they have lifetime tenure and need not worry about reelection, this is simply unrealistic; every individual brings his own personal bias to a situation, and it need not be generated by political pressure for this bias to exist. For a person who was not even directly elected by the people to have a term of office that lasts for the rest of their life is simply too much power being bottlenecked into one place, at least when it has no means of being checked by other systems. I do not see why a mere nine people should have the power to permit or strike down a law that will affect three hundred million other people, at least to the nearly unlimited extent to which they have it now.

    Even as early as 1804, following the case of Marbury vs. Madison and the establishment of the "judicial review" concept, Thomas Jefferson himself warned the Congress existing at the time that this was too much power being given to the Supreme Court, but they ignored him.

    I dunno, what do you think?
    50%  Voted for by Xelgaroth, Inan.
    View 8 comments
  • :

  • Non with standing clause
    In the Canadian Constitution there is a clause known as the non-with standing clause.

    If the Canadian Supreme court ruled a law unconstitional, the federal govt or provincial govts can use this clause to set aside the verdict. However, the govt would have the revisit the issue every five yrs and reinstate the cluase.

    The court rarely rules on matters that affect the excutive or Parliament.

    As well, in Canada supreme court judges are appointed by the Prime minister without approval of parliament.

    Can't legislatures in the states overrule courts thru amendments to the constitution?
    Voted for by mathrevi.
    View 6 comments
  • :

  • Getting Stoned On The Town Common
    electing judges may seem on the surface to further democracy but:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/31/christian_conservatives_target_judges/

    do you want oil co. to be the major contributors to re- election campains on the gulf coast?

    timber co. in the north west?

    what wonderful safe fuel efficient cars will we have if the big three run the federal judges?

    in the places that they do elect judges. they do it in off year elections. a group of churches or another special interest group could pack the courts with extreme ideologues.

    Welcome to Iran!
    Voted for by bob2314.
    View 1 comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →