NationStates Jolt Archive

Should there be a retirment age for the supreme court?

Personnaly, I don't think there should be.

Forty. *nod*

I agree, there shouldn't be.

Pretty cruddy "lifetime appointment" if it isn't allowed to last a lifetime.

Should there be a retirment age for the supreme court?

Personnaly, I don't think there should be.
I agree. With the ages for Congress, Senate and Presidency as low as they are, the Framers were very wise to stabalize the government by having the SC Justices appointed for life. In addition, since they don't have to be concerned about ever working for another organization, they are essentially invulnerable to bribery.

How many judges make up the supreme court? In my mind, the larger the number the better the case for life appointment. But then if they're appointed for life they should really be appoint by direct democracy not representative democracy. My two pennies. c.c

How many judges make up the supreme court? In my mind, the larger the number the better the case for life appointment. But then if they're appointed for life they should really be appoint by direct democracy not representative democracy. My two pennies. c.c
Bad idea. Judges shouldn't be touched by politics...

supreme court should have a retirement age about 50-60 i just think this b/c they need new blood every now and then to keep up with wat the people want and the changeing with the time

supreme court should have a retirement age about 50-60 i just think this b/c they need new blood every now and then to keep up with wat the people want and the changeing with the time
That's why the term of office for Congressional representatives is so short. The entire idea is to structure the government so that substantive changes cannot be made overnight, nor can they be made easily. This is to protect the nation from short-sighted changes made in the heat of the moment, and to protect minorities from majority-tyranny.

Bad idea. Judges shouldn't be touched by politics...As if they're not touched by politics at the moment? They're appointed by the President. Aren't they? Anyway, it's impossible for anything to remain untouched by politics. The UK House of Lords (unelected peers of the 2nd house of Parliment) and the Law Lords (the highest judges in the land) have to be careful not to upset Parliment too much or face Parliment passing an act abolishing them. Which they can do seeing as the UK parliment is sovereign.

As if they're not touched by politics at the moment? They're appointed by the President. Aren't they? Anyway, it's impossible for anything to remain untouched by politics. The UK House of Lords (unelected peers of the 2nd house of Parliment) and the Law Lords (the highest judges in the land) have to be careful not to upset Parliment too much or face Parliment passing an act abolishing them. Which they can do seeing as the UK parliment is sovereign.
Supreme Court Justices are a highly independent lot. They can afford to be, since no one can kick them out of office or vote against them or threaten them with virtually anything. They are appointed by the President, but almost always suprise people with the sort of decisions they make.

Supreme Court Justices are a highly independent lot. They can afford to be, since no one can kick them out of office or vote against them or threaten them with virtually anything. They are appointed by the President, but almost always suprise people with the sort of decisions they make.
No one can kick them out office? Doesn't that make them above the law? If they group together then they could never get convicted for anything they do. "Alright, I'm appealing to the supreme court... Thanks for overturning the conviction mates". No one can threaten them? Anyone can demand that they make a certain decision or that they'll be assasinated - seeing as that's the only way they can be removed from office.

I think they can be impeached if they do any thing illigal.

So who's in charge of arranging the members of the tribunal for the impeachment?

I think they can be impeached if they do any thing illigal. and anyway federal courts, like the supreme court, only deal with constitutional issues, like abuse of freedom of speech.

Just checked the Supreme court's website www.supremecourt.gov and it claims that the Supreme court has juristriction over all cases, and that it is the highest court. However, in most cases it is only an appealate court and does not have original juristriction (ie the supreme court can not convict you of an offense only to overturn a decision of reafirm it).

It also states that the powers of the Supreme Court are granted by various statutes and authority given to Congress by the Constitution.

So once again. I do not believe that the Supreme Court is above politics. And anything involved in politics should not be given ultimate power AND lifetime appointment. Otherwise you have a dicatorship in what was supposed to be a democracy.

I believe that the highest court should be independent of the government, directly elected for long terms, and not be allowed to hold a second term.

There are nine Supreme Court Justices.

I believe that the highest court should be independent of the government, directly elected for long terms, and not be allowed to hold a second term.How does running for judicial office make a judge "independent of the government?" How do you propose such a person become a candidate, run for office and become elected? How do you propose voters make any sort of rational decision about which candidate to vote for?

There are a few states that still elect their judiciary. The states that do so have considerable problems with improper judicial influence both from direct bribery and indirectly through questionable campaign donations from various attorneys and their organizations. They also have problems with the public voting in incompetent yahoos that just happened to have the same name as a "famous son" or were good looking.

As far as direct elections... Would those be handled by Diebold? ;)

No one can kick them out office? Doesn't that make them above the law? If they group together then they could never get convicted for anything they do. "Alright, I'm appealing to the supreme court... Thanks for overturning the conviction mates". No one can threaten them? Anyone can demand that they make a certain decision or that they'll be assasinated - seeing as that's the only way they can be removed from office.
"Appointment for life" does NOT mean you can get away with murder. They fall under the same Constitutional strictures as the President, "treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." In the US NO ONE is above the law.

supreme court should have a retirement age about 50-60 i just think this b/c they need new blood every now and then to keep up with wat the people want and the changeing with the time

Bad idea. The SC is to judge our laws and not what the people want.

As if they're not touched by politics at the moment? They're appointed by the President. Aren't they? Anyway, it's impossible for anything to remain untouched by politics. The UK House of Lords (unelected peers of the 2nd house of Parliment) and the Law Lords (the highest judges in the land) have to be careful not to upset Parliment too much or face Parliment passing an act abolishing them. Which they can do seeing as the UK parliment is sovereign.

Actually it's a gamble with the appointments. Some thought they had a conservative and they went liberal after the appointment.

Once they are in, they are not beholden to the President.....

No one can kick them out office? Doesn't that make them above the law? If they group together then they could never get convicted for anything they do. "Alright, I'm appealing to the supreme court... Thanks for overturning the conviction mates". No one can threaten them? Anyone can demand that they make a certain decision or that they'll be assasinated - seeing as that's the only way they can be removed from office.

Yes they are appointed for life.

No they are not above the law. If they commit a crime they still can be convicted at the lower courts.

The SC does not step in on issues. Issues are brought to them. They can decide to listen to them or not.

Even if the case was taken up, there has to be hard evidence to prove the conviction was wrong.

Most likely the Court would not take up the case of a convicted Supreme Court Justice.....

There are 9 supreme court judges serving. The only way they can be kicked out of office is for breaking a federal act.

The idea of a retirment age came up after revealing that past SC judges have been manic-depressives, have had alzheimers, and have had drug issues.

I personnaly think that they should not have rretirment age. The argument against retirment age seems to be based off deteriorating mental health of SC judges past the age of 65. Right now, only one judge is under 65, the rest are above 70 and one is 80. I think that the mental health of a judge is determined by the lifestyle of the judge, not their age.

I agree. With the ages for Congress, Senate and Presidency as low as they are, the Framers were very wise to stabalize the government by having the SC Justices appointed for life. In addition, since they don't have to be concerned about ever working for another organization, they are essentially invulnerable to bribery.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, these days the general public, most politicians, and a large number of judges have gotten the idea that the court system should match our two-party system. In truth, if a judge's own personal political leanings are obvious in their decisions, they aren't a very good judge in the first place and certainly shouldn't get an appointment to a higher court.

I believe that the highest court should be independent of the government, directly elected for long terms, and not be allowed to hold a second term.

Direct election would make them beholden to the majority, which they should never be. Again, a judge's personal politics should never enter into the equation at all. They are there to interpret the law as it is written, not as the people want them to.

At a certain age, judges can't function. They can be mentally sound for a very long time, but at some point, they have health problems that keep them home. Out of nine justices, four have cancer. Several are old enough to be my great-grandparents. All our old enough to be admitted into a nursing home. So I say that they are forced to retire at 78, but it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. If the president sees that a justice is able, he can reappoint him to a four year term as often as he'd like, barring that the justice doesn't die or retire.

supreme court should have a retirement age about 50-60 i just think this b/c they need new blood every now and then to keep up with wat the people want and the changeing with the time

They get new blood every now and then as it is.

On average, a Justice is appointed about every 2 years or so. (We happen to be in a long lull now, but still.)

Direct election would make them beholden to the majority, which they should never be. Again, a judge's personal politics should never enter into the equation at all. They are there to interpret the law as it is written, not as the people want them to.
You're assuming that a mass of people are too hysterically to be able to interepret the law without bias, and that an individual will be able to interpret the law perfectly and without bias. I don't follow that line of thought.

But like I said - they wouldn't have to worry about re-election. Also that they would be there long enough for their decisions to make a consistant impact to the country and nor would the country have to worry about their mental health as with the case of the Pope and many communist leaders.

Supreme Court Justices are a highly independent lot. They can afford to be, since no one can kick them out of office or vote against them or threaten them with virtually anything. They are appointed by the President, but almost always suprise people with the sort of decisions they make.

Yes, but there are nevertheless important general trends. For instance, when the United States government is party to a case, it almost always wins. Not always, but almost always. Moreover, the Court gives strong consideration to amicus briefs filed by the government.

I think they can be impeached if they do any thing illigal. and anyway federal courts, like the supreme court, only deal with constitutional issues, like abuse of freedom of speech.

That's not true at all.

Just checked the Supreme court's website www.supremecourt.gov and it claims that the Supreme court has juristriction over all cases, and that it is the highest court. However, in most cases it is only an appealate court and does not have original juristriction (ie the supreme court can not convict you of an offense only to overturn a decision of reafirm it).

Yes, they also have almost unlimited jurisdictional freedom, meaning if they don't want to hear a case, they don't have to. (Basically the only cases they have to deal with are consititutional issues between the Congress and the President (VERY rare), and the rare instance in which Congress tells them they have to hear a case.

It also states that the powers of the Supreme Court are granted by various statutes and authority given to Congress by the Constitution.

Yep, its jurisdiction is determined by law. Actually, in the 90s the Court more or less came out and begged Congress to restrict their jurisdiction, because they just didn't want to deal with certain things.

I say that they are forced to retire at 78, but it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. If the president sees that a justice is able, he can reappoint him to a four year term as often as he'd like, barring that the justice doesn't die or retire.Making the position even more political than it is. As a justice nears the suggested mandatory retirement age, he or she can't but think that they must keep the President happy and tow his ideological line in order to keep their seat on the Court. The Court, historically, has been fairly effective in policing itself in terms of individual member's mental and physical competence.

I'm still happy with the decision made by the Law Lords on the 16th of December 2004. By 8-1, a panel of 9 Law lords, instead of the usual 5 decided that the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. So now Blair has to get the law amended or face it being struck down. :D

Direct election would make them beholden to the majority, which they should never be.

Unfortunately, it appears that they sway pretty easily to public opinion. In most cases, they are also powerless to do anything that Congress and the President do not approve of... the evidence is that when the Supreme Court invalidates a law or interprets it other than Congress might like, Congress just drafts a new law within about four years that gets around whatever problem the Court has, or rewords things to clear up misinterpretation.

(Most justices and their staffs, of course, put a premium on interpreting according to legislative intent... which is never an easy problem anyway. You would be surprised how much time they spend reading the Congressional record trying to figure out what the most important issues were in the debates over a particular law.)

Again, a judge's personal politics should never enter into the equation at all.

Unfortunately, they do... and there does not seem to be any way of preventing it. "Attitudinal theory," we call it -- the notion that you can predict how a judge will vote based on her/his personal political beliefs. With some restrictions (as described by rational choice theorists and institutionalists), it does make pretty good predictions -- which tends to corroborate the theory that judges vote according to personal attitudes.

So, AnarchyeL, what are your thoughts on the Supreme Court? You seem to be be highlighting the good and bad part of the Supreme Court, but with holding your judgement.

So, AnarchyeL, what are your thoughts on the Supreme Court? You seem to be be highlighting the good and bad part of the Supreme Court, but with holding your judgement.

Honestly, I may be too "close" to it to make a clear judgment. But I will do my best.

I believe it beneficial to democracy to have a Supreme Court that is free of immediate political pressures, though not so unresponsive as to be overtly "antidemocratic." While the United States Court is in need of a variety of reforms, because the life appointment achieves this goal I do not see the need to amend the Constitution to change it.

The most important thing about the life appointment is not, as many people think, that it removes the Court from the electoral pressures of a democratic population. Rather, its importance is that justices never have to worry about getting another job, or "advancing" their careers. Thus they do not try to curry favor with other parties, within the government or without, who may be able to help them advance private goals.

As I have already mentioned, the empirical evidence is that the Court is surprisingly "democratic." Among the reasons is the fact that, although justices do not need the public to like them, they want to be well-regarded. Esteem is one of the reasons they have gone into public service; they want people to think well of them.

Of course, they have other values as well. A career as a judge tends to attract people who think the law is valuable, and consistency in the law is a good thing. Thus, although their personal preferences and attitudes weigh in on decisions, they are likely to put some effort into maintaining the "rule of law." They also have "institutional" concerns, such as maintaining the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public; after all, they have no real means of enforcement... their decisions only have power because people believe they have power.

I will not go into the varieties of reform I think are necessary -- most of them are minor compared to the issue of whether or not to retain life terms. My point here is simply to suggest that because "protecting the law" has an extremely selfless quality about it, it should be done by a body as withdrawn as possible from immediate private concerns. No one should expect justices to ignore their personal attitudes in judging. Indeed, this is impossible because the law is inherently ambiguous. But we need an institution that demands as good as possible. And this means protection from immediate private pressures.

As people who have read my posts elsewhere will know, I think the real virtue of a political system lies in its "selection variables" -- the means through which it attracts people to public office. Selection variables determine the sort of people who get into office. The Supreme Court, because it has a life term and holds such a high status in our society, attracts men and women for whom it is a life goal. There are plenty of lower court judges who want to use their position as a stepping stone to other offices or private occupations. This disposition is much more rare amongst Supreme Court justices.

Well said.
...
How are you close to the judicial system? Just curious, feel free to ignore this question if you want.

Not sure what to say. To be honnest I was playing devils advocate and was getting a little pissed with everyone's assumptions about the Courts.

I'd say I agree with everything you said there. Which means there's no room for a discussion left. Damn.

Well said.
...
How are you close to the judicial system?

In no terribly interesting way. :)


I am a scientist in the field of public law. While we ultimately wind up making some policy recommendations, it can be difficult to study how the Court actually works if we let ourselves get too wrapped up in how we think it should work. Also, the more you understand something, the more you find that there are no "perfect" solutions. Yes, most of us have some concerns about the life term. But we also see real problems with its elimination. So it comes down to balancing the "pros and cons." For myself, I think the life term confers more and greater benefits than potential costs.

I do not pretend to speak for the whole of my profession... although the great majority seem to agree with me.

To be honnest I was playing devils advocate and was getting a little pissed with everyone's assumptions about the Courts.

Good for you! It is my job to evaluate those assumptions based on the empirical evidence. It turns out that the (very natural) concern that the Court does not respond to public pressure is, on the whole, not very accurate. ;)

I hope I was helpful.

(As an aside, there is also considerable evidence that the Court may not be as effective in social policy-making as many people assume. For example, when people want to talk about the Court's supposedly sweeping powers in social policy, they almost invariably point to the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision. But do you know what happened in terms of school desegregation in the ten years following Brown? Not a damn thing. People didn't even so much as talk about it -- check the major speeches, the newspapers, the newsmagazines. Nothing. School desegration did not begin until a decade later when the other branches of the government got involved.)

You're assuming that a mass of people are too hysterically to be able to interepret the law without bias, and that an individual will be able to interpret the law perfectly and without bias. I don't follow that line of thought.

Human psychology shows quite clearly that a single person is much more likely to be able to interpret the law without bias than would the masses.

However, the real point is that elections would cause judges to run on a "I will vote for X and against Y" basis, bringing that individual's politics into it, where they have no place.

As for all the "Some of them are not mentally competent," arguments, this could easily be solved by having mandatory mental competency exams. If a person is no longer mentally competent to fill the position, they are removed.

Unfortunately, it appears that they sway pretty easily to public opinion. In most cases, they are also powerless to do anything that Congress and the President do not approve of... the evidence is that when the Supreme Court invalidates a law or interprets it other than Congress might like, Congress just drafts a new law within about four years that gets around whatever problem the Court has, or rewords things to clear up misinterpretation.

That isn't evidence of a problem it is *exactly* the way it is supposed to work. The court system says a law is invalid for X reason. Congress rewrites the law to make it constitutional. Now it can pass.

It's called checks and balances. You are describing a system in which neither the court nor the legislature have absolute power - exactly what it should be.

That isn't evidence of a problem it is *exactly* the way it is supposed to work. The court system says a law is invalid for X reason. Congress rewrites the law to make it constitutional. Now it can pass.

It's called checks and balances. You are describing a system in which neither the court nor the legislature have absolute power - exactly what it should be.

The point is that Congress manages to re-write the laws to do exactly what they were doing before, while eliminating or re-wording the language that bothered the Court.

In other words, Congress gets to do pretty much whatever it wants. That is not a "check."

The point is that Congress manages to re-write the laws to do exactly what they were doing before, while eliminating or re-wording the language that bothered the Court.

The laws don't do *exactly* what they did before. In order to pass muster, they must be stunted at least a little bit. While language certainly can be the factor, this is generally because of what the language causes the law to do.

Let's take a more recent for instance (in the realm of state law, but basicially the same). The Mass. state court found that, under its current constitution, marriage licenses must be granted to gay couples. The Mass. legislature considered adding a law against it, but this would also be unconstitutional. The Mass. legislature then considered instituting civil unions and asked the court if this would pass. The court said no. Gay marriage is now allowed in Mass. The legislature is now working to try to add an amendment that would make it constitutional to restrict these rights. If they manage it, any further challenges will have to be on the basis of the US Constitution (which I believe will eventually be determined to be the same on this issue as the Mass. one). Because of this, some in Congress are currently trying to amend the US Constitution.

This is exactly the kind of back and forth intended by the checks and balances.

In other words, Congress gets to do pretty much whatever it wants. That is not a "check."

Not really. What it wanted to do was in the first law, which got struck down. The new law, while it may be similar, does not do exactly the same thing, or it would likewise be struck down.

The laws don't do *exactly* what they did before. In order to pass muster, they must be stunted at least a little bit. While language certainly can be the factor, this is generally because of what the language causes the law to do.

No, it's not. I've seen the research. If you want you can head down to your local university library and read it... You should find some articles in American Political Science Review. (Just check the index.)

This is not to say it always works like that. Sometimes the Court makes a decision that Congress does not reverse. But the trend is that within four years Congress reverses Supreme Court decisions that go against it.

EDIT: (You seem to forget that the majority of Supreme Court rulings have nothing to do with the Constitution.)

No, it's not. I've seen the research. If you want you can head down to your local university library and read it... You should find some articles in American Political Science Review. (Just check the index.)

This is not to say it always works like that. Sometimes the Court makes a decision that Congress does not reverse. But the trend is that within four years Congress reverses Supreme Court decisions that go against it.

If this is so true, you should be able to produce at least one case in which Congress made a law within four years that did the *exact* same thing, but was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

EDIT: (You seem to forget that the majority of Supreme Court rulings have nothing to do with the Constitution.)

Supreme Court rulings either have to do with laws which are already on the books - appeals of cases from lower courts and interpreting these laws, or striking down laws which are found to be unconstitutional.

If you mean that most Supreme Court cases do not strike down a law, this is true. They interpret the law. If Congress doesn't like the interpretation, they can change it to a law that they think will be interpreted in the way they want.

However, the cases you were talking about were cases in which the Supreme Court *strikes down* a law, which does have to do with the Constitution - as the Constitution is the basis on which they can strike down a law.

If this is so true, you should be able to produce at least one case in which Congress made a law within four years that did the *exact* same thing, but was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Most of their decisions have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Most of their decisions have nothing to do with the Constitution.

All of the decisions in which a law is struck down do.

However, the cases you were talking about were cases in which the Supreme Court *strikes down* a law, which does have to do with the Constitution - as the Constitution is the basis on which they can strike down a law.

I just reread my posts. Where did I say that? (Although it is perfectly true that the intent of many of the laws they strike down is simply re-worded in a later law.)

The point is, people think the Supreme Court has a great deal of power... but public law impact analysis has been unable to show that very much about the law would be any different if the Supreme Court didn't exist.

All of the decisions in which a law is struck down do.

Not really. State laws are stuck down that conflict with Federal law. Federal laws are invalidated or drastically reinterpreted if they conflict with a more encompassing federal law -- like the Civil Rights Act -- without explicitly amending it.

Laws have also been invalidated for a reason as simple as that the Supreme Court thinks their meaning is hopelessly "unclear" and cannot be applied. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I just reread my posts. Where did I say that?

The only way in which Congress can "simply rewrite a law" and reverse the Supreme Court decision are those in which a law has been struck down.

(Although it is perfectly true that the intent of many of the laws they strike down is simply re-worded in a later law.)

Which, if it is never challenged, is not the realm of the Supreme Court.

If it is challenged, and does the exact same thing, it will be struck down. Thus, while the basic intent may still remain, the part that resulted in the law being struck down is no longer present.

The point is, people think the Supreme Court has a great deal of power... but public law impact analysis has been unable to show that very much about the law would be any different if the Supreme Court didn't exist.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to change the law. It is there to interpret it and ensure that it does not unduly restrict the rights of the public. However, the fact that the Supreme Court has not changed the law much does not mean, as you said earlier, that Congress can "do whatever it wants." The Court ensures that Congress does not do anything unconstitutional (mostly by just being there, as Congress is unlikely to pass a law that they think won't hold up), or, if they do and challenges are brought against the law, the law is removed. Thus, Congress does not have unlimited power, as you seem to believe.

Not really. State laws are stuck down that conflict with Federal law. Federal laws are invalidated or drastically reinterpreted if they conflict with a more encompassing federal law -- like the Civil Rights Act -- without explicitly amending it.

Laws made by Congress are not State laws.

Laws have also been invalidated for a reason as simple as that the Supreme Court thinks their meaning is hopelessly "unclear" and cannot be applied. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

True, but the Supreme Court intends for these laws to be rewritten in a way that they are clear and can be implied (unless their intent is unconstitutiona). As such, no apparent power is removed from the SC when Congress rewrites the law.

The only way in which Congress can "simply rewrite a law" and reverse the Supreme Court decision are those in which a law has been struck down.

Not at all. The Supreme Court can decide all sorts of things about laws... that they don't apply in certain situations, for instance, in which Congress intended them to apply.

Which, if it is never challenged, is not the realm of the Supreme Court.

If it is challenged, and does the exact same thing, it will be struck down. Thus, while the basic intent may still remain, the part that resulted in the law being struck down is no longer present.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see where the misunderstanding comes from. You apparently think that if someone challenges a law, then the Supreme Court can only invalidate the law based on the specific argument of the plaintiff. In actual fact, the Supreme Court can base their decision on any part of the law they want, which may have nothing to do with the case. Often enough, it is just the way it is worded that they don't like, not the way it has been applied.

Then Congress just re-writes the law to do what it was doing in the first place.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to change the law.

Yes, but it does change the law. Some justices may be more self-conscious about this than others, but the fact is that the Court is a policy-making body, whether we like it or not.

However, the fact that the Supreme Court has not changed the law much does not mean, as you said earlier, that Congress can "do whatever it wants." The Court ensures that Congress does not do anything unconstitutional (mostly by just being there, as Congress is unlikely to pass a law that they think won't hold up),

Congress is pretty ballsy... especially since they know they control the Supreme Court's budget. It is the Court that is very unwilling to oppose Congress or the Administration. (One of the reasons that when the government is a litigant, it almost always wins.)

or, if they do and challenges are brought against the law, the law is removed. Thus, Congress does not have unlimited power, as you seem to believe.

Oh, I don't really think it's unlimited... I just have to point out to you that all the evidence points to the Court's being not nearly so powerful as most people seem to think. They usually go with public opinion (which also tends to tell Congresspeople what to do), and their decisions that oppose Congress are almost invariably reversed by Congress within four years.

True, but the Supreme Court intends for these laws to be rewritten in a way that they are clear and can be implied (unless their intent is unconstitutiona).

Really? You should hear the justices talk about it. Often enough, "unclear" is just as good an excuse as any for them to rule the way they want. It is a way for them to "signal" Congress that they may cause trouble for other versions of this law or laws similar to it... and sometimes Congress listens. Most of the time, however, Congress goes ahead and rewrites the law.

Laws made by Congress are not State laws.

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

I was just trying to give you a complete list.

Not at all. The Supreme Court can decide all sorts of things about laws... that they don't apply in certain situations, for instance, in which Congress intended them to apply.

And if Congress did not intend them to apply there, Congress can then change the law to match it. Another example of checks and balances.

Ahh, I see where the misunderstanding comes from. You apparently think that if someone challenges a law, then the Supreme Court can only invalidate the law based on the specific argument of the plaintiff.

Not at all. However, there must be some challenge made before the court can have anything to do with it. They can't just watch over Congress' shoulder and say "I don't like that, don't do it" and force Congress not to make the law. It must be challenged in some way.

Then Congress just re-writes the law to do what it was doing in the first place.

If it is doing something that the court has previously struck down and is challenged, chances are that it will be likewise struck down.

Yes, but it does change the law. Some justices may be more self-conscious about this than others, but the fact is that the Court is a policy-making body, whether we like it or not.

Not to the point that many like to argue.

Congress is pretty ballsy... especially since they know they control the Supreme Court's budget.

Congress is also aware of how it looks when they pass an obviously unconstitutional law and get called on it. Thus, they don't generally do it.

It is the Court that is very unwilling to oppose Congress or the Administration. (One of the reasons that when the government is a litigant, it almost always wins.)

In the big cases, the court has opposed both on more than one occasion. The courts were never meant to be anti-rest of the government.
Meanwhile, I find it funny that you are so convinced that the court as a whole is unwilling to oppose Congress or the Administration. How many of the court's big decisions are actually unanimous?

Oh, I don't really think it's unlimited... I just have to point out to you that all the evidence points to the Court's being not nearly so powerful as most people seem to think.

Which is as it should be. There are way too many people out there that think the court system has some sort of edge over the other two branches.

Dempublicans, it is clear you are more concerned with how things are supposed to work than with how they actually work. We are therefore talking about two different things.

The "big" decisions that you refer to, by the way, are big precisely because they epitomize the Court's policy-making role, not its purpose for Constitutional review.

Dempublicans, it is clear you are more concerned with how things are supposed to work than with how they actually work. We are therefore talking about two different things.

You stated that the court does not provide a check against Congress. I have demonstrated that it provides exactly the checks it was meant to provide in the first place.

If Constitutional and legal meaning were so obvious, such decisions would not be so controversial.

You stated that the court does not provide a check against Congress. I have demonstrated that it provides exactly the checks it was meant to provide in the first place.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You have asserted something against all scientific evidence. Since you refuse to believe me, I refer you to the scientific journals. There is little else I can do.

The "big" decisions that you refer to, by the way, are big precisely because they epitomize the Court's policy-making role, not its purpose for Constitutional review.

If you consider any strike down of a law as unconstitutional as policy making, sure.

Remember that laws in this country are restrictive. If the court decides that a law must be struck down because it restricts something it should not, that may be seen as "policy-making", but it is in fact removing a policy that should not have been there in the first place.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You have asserted something against all scientific evidence. Since you refuse to believe me, I refer you to the scientific journals. There is little else I can do.

The statements you have made and the evidence you have presented point to do very different conclusions.

You still have yet to refer me to a single case in which a law was challenged, the court struck it down, Congress rewrote a law doing the exact same thing but worded slightly differently, and then the court said it was fine.

You originally said that Congress had unlimited power, then reneged on that claim.

You said that the Court doesn't have as much power as people think it does and I said that was true.

And you certainly have yet to provide any scientific evidence.

If you consider any strike down of a law as unconstitutional as policy making, sure.

Remember that laws in this country are restrictive. If the court decides that a law must be struck down because it restricts something it should not, that may be seen as "policy-making", but it is in fact removing a policy that should not have been there in the first place.

No, the Court does plenty of social policy-making that has nothing to do with striking down restrictive laws.

For instance, the Court required the Miranda warning... There was no law that said suspects should not be read their rights.

Similarly in the fifties the Court completely restructured the juvenile court system. They said that juveniles accused of things that would be criminal for adults have the right to an attorney (previously no such right existed), for instance.

(The actual effects of this ruling were not, as the Court intended, to protect juveniles from "arbitrary" rules... rather, it just shuffled most of them out of the court system and into pre-court social services and increased plea-bargaining, which is probably more arbitrary than what they faced before. .... No one ever said the Court was particularly good at social policy.)

You still have yet to refer me to a single case in which a law was challenged, the court struck it down, Congress rewrote a law doing the exact same thing but worded slightly differently, and then the court said it was fine.

For obvious reasons, these cases tend not to be very memorable. You can easily find some for yourself, as well as the relevant statistics, in the public law and political science journals.

If I have to do your homework for you, however, I will review my notes and get back to you when I have a chance... but that is so much work for me, and I just don't know if you are worth it.

You originally said that Congress had unlimited power, then reneged on that claim.

I did not. I said Congress can do "pretty much" whatever it wants, which is true. The Court very rarely changes Congressional policy. Again, there are studies on this, I just don't have them ready-to-hand. (Impact analysis isn't really my cup of tea... I just don't see the excitement in it.)

No, the Court does plenty of social policy-making that has nothing to do with striking down restrictive laws.

For instance, the Court required the Miranda warning... There was no law that said suspects should not be read their rights.

I could be wrong, but I believe what they ruled was that a person's case could be thrown out if they were not completely aware of their rights. The response was a law requiring the reading of the Miranda warning. The Court itself did not make a law requiring such a warning.

Similarly in the fifties the Court completely restructured the juvenile court system. They said that juveniles accused of things that would be criminal for adults have the right to an attorney (previously no such right existed), for instance.

Here, they were interpreting a law as including a bigger group than before - specifically a protection - not writing a law.

If I have to do your homework for you, however, I will review my notes and get back to you when I have a chance... but that is so much work for me, and I just don't know if you are worth it.

You are the one making an assertion and claiming to have scientific evidence. As such, you must be able to provide at least something as evidence.

And I don't see any obvious reason that these cases would "not be very memorable." In fact, especially if this were my area of study, they are *exactly* the cases I would remember.

I did not. I said Congress can do "pretty much" whatever it wants, which is true. The Court very rarely changes Congressional policy. Again, there are studies on this, I just don't have them ready-to-hand. (Impact analysis isn't really my cup of tea... I just don't see the excitement in it.)

Which does not equate to, as you stated earlier, the Court not providing a check on Congress.

You don't have to write the law to set the policy. If you accept that, then you are just declaring that the Court does not make social-policy "by definition."

The fact is that their decisions have policy-making power. If Congress makes a law to back it up, that is basically a rubber-stamp... If they had not backed up the Miranda ruling, the precedent would have been enough to throw the cases out of Court. (Congress just wanted to encourage law enforcement to prevent this from happening.)

If "expanding a right" has profound, often unpredictable social consequences, it is a matter of setting policy.

You are the one making an assertion and claiming to have scientific evidence. As such, you must be able to provide at least something as evidence.

And I have. It's just that some of those science-y type journals don't publish on the Internet. (Since they generally don't advertise, they are subscription-dependent.) So I have told you where to find the evidence. If you want to verify it, go ahead.

And I don't see any obvious reason that these cases would "not be very memorable." In fact, especially if this were my area of study, they are *exactly* the cases I would remember.

I already told you, I'm not interested in impact analysis. I had to learn the overarching theories and basic facts, but I'm not going to memorize cases for an area in which I have no intention of doing research. When it comes to the Supreme Court, I do attitudinal theory, rational choice theory, and historical institutionalism... believe me, these are more than enough!!