NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if there is a precendent for this or not.

But I realise the US federal government is made up of a system of checks and balances, but it seems like the Supreme Court is the most powerful part in many ways (even taking into account the fact that it can only act reactively not proactively).

However, imo the court has ruled fairly oddly before (imo), but there has always been an under lying logic to it, and the rest of the government has had to follow its wishes.

However, what would happen if it ruled in a completely insane way? Is there any recourse if this happens.

PS: I don't mean something it ruling in a way you disagree with, but in a way that completely defies logic, of any sort.

To make up an example that is unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. If a Constitutional Amendment is passed explicitly saying that it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preferences (really, what is contained in the amendment is irrelevent) and the SCOTUS interprets is as meaning that when you see a spider you have to offer it ice cream.(Again, the details are irrelevent execpt for showing the insanity I am talking about.)

Can anything be done. Can the executive simply refuse to enforce the ruling?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Look up Andrew Jackson.

My answer would be "probably".

Example: What Andrew Jackson did in response to the Supreme Court's decision of Worcester v. Georgia. The difference is: that case wasn't "crazy", but the point being that the executive branch simply ignored the decision.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#The_case)

Edit: Argh, you beat me by two minutes.

It has happened before, though not in this context. In Worcester v. Georgia, the SCOTUS ruled that the state of Georgia could not reappropriate Cherokee lands for its own uses because that would violate treaties between the Cherokee Nation and the U.S. Government.

However, Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision and let Georgia do whatever the hell it wanted. His successor used the resulting resistance to deploy federal troops and force the Cherokee out on the infamous "Trail of Tears."

Of course, this set in motion a national policy of raping treaties with native nations that would last a very long time... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

However, this remains the only case in United States history where a SCOTUS ruling has been openly defied by the executive.

Edit: Doh! Someone beat me to it.

Further edit: I got my mases cixed up. :p

Funny thing is, we are approaching a point where the executive is going to ignore the judicial branch.

Not if a couple justices decide they want to stop... justicing in the next three years. Which looks probable.

Not really. The supreme court, apart from Thomas, have turned into a bunch of self important douch-nozzles.

Indeed, the entire legal profession seems to think that the democratic process is secondary to their well reasoned blather - be it rightist or leftist.

Enough I say! Show some deference to the peoples will.

Where as Thomas has turned into a Scalia-important douche nozzle. :D

Thanks you three :)

So, since the SCOTUS does not have any power it relies upon the executive to enforce its rulings/interpretations. Even though it may have ruled against something the executive wished to happen. And if the executive decides to ignore the SCOTUS it can do nothing but sit idlely by (like with Jackson).

I assume that the President could be impeached though (under the "High crimes" part of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution). And since Congress has the power of impeachment, nothing will happen unless Congress thinks that impeachment procedings should begin.

Enough I say! Show some deference to the peoples will.
People? What are they?

Are they those things we get paid to oppress?

Where as Thomas has turned into a Scalia-important douche nozzle. :D

Yah, but I give him props for the lopez decision.

Plus I liek Thomas, after what he has been through how couldn't you. I agree with a lot of scalia outside of the court; but what can I tell you? I leik deference. ;)

People? What are they?

Are they those things we get paid to oppress?
Yes. Yes they are. And, if they're lucky, we get to gamble with their retirement money too.

People? What are they?

Are they those things we get paid to oppress?

You need a cuddle. I can tell. :fluffle:

That's the nearest thing to a cuddle I can give you right now. ;)

Yah, but I give him props for the lopez decision.

Plus I liek Thomas, after what he has been through how couldn't you. I agree with a lot of scalia outside of the court; but what can I tell you? I leik deference. ;)

Yeah, true. But someone could possibly not like Thomas if they believe the stories when he was going through that... stuff. Yeah.

Yes. Yes they are. And, if they're lucky, we get to gamble with their retirement money too.

Hmm, that's true. After all I am fully paid up in social security and I'll get jack shit back.

A constitutional amendment can be passed to make something constitutional.

It is a lengthy and difficult process, but if the court genuinely ruled against the opinion of the great majority of americans, it would be simple to pass an amendment.

Yeah, true. But someone could possibly not like Thomas if they believe the stories when he was going through that... stuff. Yeah.

You think they were true?

Just gonna sit here on my hands and try to chew my own tongue out. Yep, that's it.

Will give Neo-Anarchists a cuddle (assuming its welcome). :fluffle:

Will give Neo-Anarchists a cuddle (assuming its welcome). :fluffle:
Cuddles are always welcome!
:fluffle:

Both the left and the right can look askance at the SCOTUS ursupation of power.

Cass Sunstein, for example.

Actually a constitutional amendement will override a supreme court decision. That is pretty much the only way to get around it. For example Christian fundies have been pushing for an amendement to do away with abortion for a long time. The 13th-15th amendments did away with all the court decisions upholding slavery (Dred Scott) and unequal treatment of blacks.

You think they were true?

Not really. But I don't have all the facts, so that's a half-educated guess.

And you know what assuming does...

I had an interesting discussion with Deacon Dave and another law student a while back on this very topic. They came up with this:
The Congress passes a law. SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. Congress can then pass the law again (slightly modified probably), and then refuse to let SCOTUS meet. Until SCOTUS meets, it cannot declare the law unconstitutional.

I had an interesting discussion with Deacon Dave and another law student a while back on this very topic. They came up with this:
The Congress passes a law. SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. Congress can then pass the law again (slightly modified probably), and then refuse to let SCOTUS meet. Until SCOTUS meets, it cannot declare the law unconstitutional.
I think that is what happened with the partial birth abortion ban. The court said you can't have a ban on the procedure without an exception to protect the life of the mother, with I think steinberg v. Carhart, and then Congress recently went ahead and passed it anyway. I could be wrong on that. Ussually the different branches of govt respect each other more than that though.

Meh ... I say chuck the whole system ...

In a parliamentary system, if a party receives 7% of the vote, that party gets 7% of the seats in the parliament. In a Republic, if a party receives 49% of the vote, they get nothing (will of the people be damned).

Given the way the country and the rest of the world are going, I am tempted to think that if Thomas Jefferson was alive today, he would advocate overthrow of the government in favor of a parliament. But I could be wrong.

Enough I say! Show some deference to the peoples will.
The people's knows jack. IT is well known that the bigger the crowd, the lower the IQ. Judges, especially the SCOTUS should not in any way refer to the people's will in their judgment. If they did, there would still be slavery, segregation, and many other discriminatory practices.

The people's will is good for politicians, not for the Judicial branch.

Meh ... I say chuck the whole system ...

In a parliamentary system, if a party receives 7% of the vote, that party gets 7% of the seats in the parliament. In a Republic, if a party receives 49% of the vote, they get nothing (will of the people be damned).

Your thinking of a Proportional Representation system (PR), Britain has a parliamentary system. Blair only got c.35% of the popular vote yet has one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British political history. The system also allows for one party to win a popular vote but gain less seats (as far as I know this has happened twice post-WWII [not sure about before], once for both the major parties*).

No idea what a parliamentary system actually is, other then the fact we have got one. I would hazard a guess that it is a (largely) democratically elected system where there are no seperations of power (The PM and his cabinet sit in the legitslature [usually the Commons], and the Lord Chancellor [who is also the head of the judiciary] is also part of the executive [ie, Cabinet] as well as sitting in the upper house, the Lords). This is a guess, I have no idea for sure though.

I won't bother typing up what I know about the different PR systems though because, a) it is boring imo and b) it has been around three years since I had to study them in any sort of detail and have forgotten a lot of it.




*Febuary, 1974. The Conservatives got 37.9% of the votes and won 297 seats in the House of Commons and Labour got 37.2% of the votes and won 301 seats.

In the 1951 election, Labour got 48.8% of the votes and won 295 seats, the Conservatives got 44.3% of the votes and won 302 seats.

You'd think we would have sorted it out considering how loud lots of Brits complained about the 2000 US presidential election, and the fact that the same has happened here. Twice.

Given the way the country and the rest of the world are going, I am tempted to think that if Thomas Jefferson was alive today, he would advocate overthrow of the government in favor of a parliament. But I could be wrong.

What I know of Jefferson, I would agree that he would try and overthrow the current US political system. What he would replace it with is anyones guess though.

Also I have heard that the Jefferson et al never expected the Constitution they wrote to last for this length of time, and fully expected a new constitution to have been been written by now. I have no idea how much truth is in this though, and I suppose it is possible to argue that the original constitution has been rewritten. Seeing how the Federal government is completely different now to what it was then and all.

Meh ... I say chuck the whole system ...

In a parliamentary system, if a party receives 7% of the vote, that party gets 7% of the seats in the parliament. In a Republic, if a party receives 49% of the vote, they get nothing (will of the people be damned).

Given the way the country and the rest of the world are going, I am tempted to think that if Thomas Jefferson was alive today, he would advocate overthrow of the government in favor of a parliament. But I could be wrong.

I doubt it. He, and all the other Founding Fathers believed in the idea of a Republic.

You know, it's not that far from Lenin. If both had the idea that the proletariat is too dumb to know what's good for them...

I had an interesting discussion with Deacon Dave and another law student a while back on this very topic. They came up with this:
The Congress passes a law. SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. Congress can then pass the law again (slightly modified probably), and then refuse to let SCOTUS meet. Until SCOTUS meets, it cannot declare the law unconstitutional.

Interesting.

Although that is kinda the opposite of what I was originally asking. What I was asking was if Congress passed an Amendment, which the SCOTUS interpreted in a way that defied logic and proved them batshit insane. (A bit like what happened with the 14th Amendment (?), but more extreme and without any logic what so ever*)


*As much as I am amazed how the Supreme Court managed to interprete it in such a way so to allow corporations to be people, I can at least see a screwy kind of logic behind it.

I doubt it. He, and all the other Founding Fathers believed in the idea of a Republic.

A parliament and a Republic are not mutually exclusive. As far as I know, France is a parliamentary system. I could be wrong though, but I am 100% sure that the idea of parliament doesn't presuppose anything incompatible with the idea of Republic (both in the narrow sense of no Monarch and in the wider sense of how is appears to be concieved in the US).

You know, it's not that far from Lenin. If both had the idea that the proletariat is too dumb to know what's good for them...

True, they were both elitists.

I don't know about the States, but what can happen in NZ if the court interprets an Act differently to it's original purpose, the Government simply rewrites or admends the Act to clarify the confused bit.
I'd guess the US would do the same.

Bump.

For no reason. Not as if this thread is going anywhere.

Bump.

For no reason. Not as if this thread is going anywhere.
Oh yeah, I also forgot to point out that Congress can potentially restrict the Supreme Court's Authority to hear cases in certain areas.
Article III of the constitution says in part.

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The key word being exceptions. In effect Congress can tell courts they don't have appellate jurisiction over an area if Congress doesn't want them interfering. In most cases the Supreme Court is excercising appellate jurisdiction, meaning the matters have already gone through lower courts. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in things like admirility cases, cases affecting ambassadors and that sort of thing.

It is not clear how much power could theoretically strip from the Court. The most famous case is "Ex PArte McCardle" from the civil war days. The case dealt with a person aressted and held for publishing inflamatory articles. The court agreed to hear his habeas corpus challenge which argued the Reconstruction Acts under which he was held were unconstitutional and Congress responded by passing an act barring the Supreme Court from hearing habeas corpus challenges.

Oh yeah, I also forgot to point out that Congress can potentially restrict the Supreme Court's Authority to hear cases in certain areas.
Article III of the constitution says in part.

:D. Thanks, oddly I found that out today a bit earlier (you could be psychic :eek:)

It is not clear how much power could theoretically strip from the Court. The most famous case is "Ex PArte McCardle" from the civil war days. The case dealt with a person aressted and held for publishing inflamatory articles. The court agreed to hear his habeas corpus challenge which argued the Reconstruction Acts under which he was held were unconstitutional and Congress responded by passing an act barring the Supreme Court from hearing habeas corpus challenges.

Lovely.