NationStates Jolt Archive

(This is in reference to the American Supreme Court)

I was thinking, instead of having one monopolistic Supreme Court, we could have a separation of power within a separation of power and have five (or whatever number) supreme courts? Initially, each state decides which Supreme Court they want to join with a 50% vote. The national government chooses the justices, so that we get a good variety of judges as the years go by, and they are to still be a free and independent judiciary- i.e. they have control of all of their finances and serve for life and everything else that we currently have. As we go on, the five different supreme courts will make rulings work by precedent with one another on the various issues. This is pretty much what used to happen in the old days of English common law, where judges would make rulings and lawyers would compile them to be used as a reference on future court cases. So we know a more decentralized system such as this would work.

Now, if a state finds their court to be really egregious in their rulings, they can, by a 2/3 majority vote, elect to join a different court. This probably would only happen in the most extreme cases, and probably not on a single issue because A.) the other court would have decided on a variety of other issues that the state may not necessarily agree with, and B.) It would require a large number of votes to change over to a new court, and such a drastic, super-majority decision would likely reflect a long-term dissatisfaction with the current court. The courts would not have to worry about keeping people under their jurisdiction, because they are free and independent and don't have to be elected by constituents, so they can feel free to interpret the law as they interpret it to be. If it is an obvious enough answer to a legal question, precedent would win over and it would most likely be universally adopted. If it is not so, there can be a variety of different answers to the question that can be used as various precedent, instead of one monolithic, monopolistic answer that could very well be wrong but cannot be changed except for a monopolistic supreme court. With a variety of precedents, it would be easier to make an optimal decision.

For issues outside of the states, like Federal Government acts etc., we can have a national supreme court, but the national supreme court would only be able to deal with issues that are not state policy but federal policy.

How about no!

(This is in reference to the American Supreme Court)

I was thinking, instead of having one monopolistic Supreme Court, we could have a separation of power within a separation of power and have five (or whatever number) supreme courts? Initially, each state decides which Supreme Court they want to join with a 50% vote.
Then why not go all the way and let people choose defense/police/courts/etc. Anarchocapitalism.

Of course, no government would go for your proposal. It would be the end of their monopolistic game.

Then why not go all the way and let people choose defense/police/courts/etc. Anarchocapitalism.

Of course, no government would go for your proposal. It would be the end of their monopolistic game.

Not to mention unconstitutional as the Constitution only allows for ONE Supreme Court.

Not to mention unconstitutional as the Constitution only allows for ONE Supreme Court.

The constitution also didn't recognize slaves as human beings, but we changed that. *Hint hint*

So we indirectly make judges electable officials.

The constitution also didn't recognize slaves as human beings, but we changed that. *Hint hint*

At gunpoint if you want the full truth.

So we indirectly make judges electable officials.

In a sense, they kind of are already, with people voting for senators and president with who they will confirm as judges in mind (Something that I will be doing). I just think this would help to dilute a monolithic power and help for a more thoughtful process.

In a sense, they kind of are already, with people voting for senators and president with who they will confirm as judges in mind (Something that I will be doing). I just think this would help to dilute a monolithic power and help for a more thoughtful process.

And a big beurocratic mess.

Hell no.

So we indirectly make judges electable officials.

Thereby not just eroding, but completely destroying, the 'independence' of the judiciary.

The problem with this is it completely destroys the point OF the supreme court.

The constitution of the united states is supreme, and applies to every citizen throughout the country evenly, no matter where in the country you are.

What happens when one court says a particular act is constitutional, and another court says the same this is unconstitutional?

That would mean that it would be decided that the constitution means different things in different parts of the country.

The point of the supreme court is to settle that sort of dispute, and SCOTUS does it ALLLLL the time. There are constant splits in circuit courts (which work largely the way you describe, divides up the nation, but no choice as to which one you're in) in which one circut will declare something constitutional, and another circuit court will declare the SAME thing unconstitutional.

We need SCOTUS to settle those, to decide definitivly and absolutly which it is. What you describe would be functionally the same as absolishing scotus and making the circuit courts the highest level court. What would happen then is that the constitution may mean different things in different parts of the country.

That CAN NOT happen. To allow it would undermine the function of the constitution, which is to be the supreme law of the nation, everywhere in the nation.

For issues outside of the states, like Federal Government acts etc., we can have a national supreme court, but the national supreme court would only be able to deal with issues that are not state policy but federal policy.

Wait. What exactly do you think the Supreme Court DOES? SCOTUS does not EVER concern itself with STATE law issues. It is a FEDERAL court. The only time it ever concerns itself with state policy is when state policy may be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS, by its mandate, only deals with issue of federal law, and the federal constitution. Unless there's a question as to whether or not a state law is in violation of the federal constitution (which makes it a federal issue), SCOTUS is not involved.

For instance gay marriage. SCOTUS has said "this is a state issue", which is why states like Texas can have outright bars on even gay civil union, but massachusettes can have full on gay marriage. It is not an issue for the federal courts, so the fed courts don't touch it.

I think you may be confused as to what SCOTUS does. It doesn't care one whit about state level policy, it only cares about federal law, and the federal constitution.

At gunpoint if you want the full truth.
You make it sound like it was a bad thing.

You make it sound like it was a bad thing.

Nope. It was not a bad thing but it was the truth none-the-less.

nope


5 supreme courts would mean 5 different decisions which would mean 5 different regional constitutions.

Wait. What exactly do you think the Supreme Court DOES? SCOTUS does not EVER concern itself with STATE law issues. It is a FEDERAL court. The only time it ever concerns itself with state policy is when state policy may be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS, by its mandate, only deals with issue of federal law, and the federal constitution. Unless there's a question as to whether or not a state law is in violation of the federal constitution (which makes it a federal issue), SCOTUS is not involved.

For instance gay marriage. SCOTUS has said "this is a state issue", which is why states like Texas can have outright bars on even gay civil union, but massachusettes can have full on gay marriage. It is not an issue for the federal courts, so the fed courts don't touch it.

I think you may be confused as to what SCOTUS does. It doesn't care one whit about state level policy, it only cares about federal law, and the federal constitution.

But what about Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Dred Scott, Kelo v. New London and all of the other cases that have to do with state and local rulings? You may say that they are dealt with because they are unconstitutional, but I think that "unconstitutional" is way too broad a term to be a great limitation on the SCOTUS. I'd rather take them out of the issue of being such a monolithic power on the internal affairs of the country and leave it more to local control and have more ability to interpret the constitution.

The problem with this is it completely destroys the point OF the supreme court.

The constitution of the united states is supreme, and applies to every citizen throughout the country evenly, no matter where in the country you are.

What happens when one court says a particular act is constitutional, and another court says the same this is unconstitutional?

That would mean that it would be decided that the constitution means different things in different parts of the country.

The point of the supreme court is to settle that sort of dispute, and SCOTUS does it ALLLLL the time. There are constant splits in circuit courts (which work largely the way you describe, divides up the nation, but no choice as to which one you're in) in which one circut will declare something constitutional, and another circuit court will declare the SAME thing unconstitutional.

We need SCOTUS to settle those, to decide definitivly and absolutly which it is. What you describe would be functionally the same as absolishing scotus and making the circuit courts the highest level court. What would happen then is that the constitution may mean different things in different parts of the country.

That CAN NOT happen. To allow it would undermine the function of the constitution, which is to be the supreme law of the nation, everywhere in the nation.

I understand the sound logic behind your argument, but I would have to politely disagree. I would prefer to have the system run via precedent, as it was for much of the history of English common law, than have a single monolithic power that decides everything. I do not find anything wrong with having various interpretations of the Constitution- you and I may disagree about the Second Amendment, if there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, and a billion other things. Is it bad that we have different interpretations? Of course not. So long as it is the Constitution that is being interpreted, then it is alright. In fact, through our multiple points of view we would likely be able to examine the issue more fully and find a solution that is more reasonable.

In fact, I believe that if we use precedent as a discussionary device, we will be better able to have laws that follow the Constitution due to the multiple points of view and discovery of details that might have been lost had the law ultimately been decided by one body. Additionally, because the people will be able to select the formations of their district instead of these archaic, anachronistic geographical selections that we have now (9th and 1st are especially amusing to see), we would have more of a balance to any court becoming egregious in their rulings- the justices won't have any real reason to change their interpretations to appease their voting bloc, seeing as how they're free and indepdenent and the fluctuation of districts has no effect on them other than a possible effect to their reputation (which is an important part of precedent- you don't follow the precedents of kooks and fools).

There are, you do know, STATE Supreme Courts as well?

And yes, SCOTUS is the ultimate decider of what is or is not constitutional.

But what about Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Dred Scott, Kelo v. New London and all of the other cases that have to do with state and local rulings? You may say that they are dealt with because they are unconstitutional, but I think that "unconstitutional" is way too broad a term to be a great limitation on the SCOTUS.

We can argue about all we want about whether abortion is a right, whether integrated schools is a right, whether the government can take Ms. Kelo's little pink house. However one of us will be right, and one of us will wrong. It either is, or it is not. Abortion is either a right under the constitution, or it is not. If it is a right, then it exists EVERYWHERE.


I'd rather take them out of the issue of being such a monolithic power on the internal affairs of the country and leave it more to local control and have more ability to interpret the constitution.

And you would create a situation in which, potentially, abortion is defined as a constitutional right in Massachusettes, and not a constitutional right in Texas. This is the antithesis of what the constitution is.



I understand the sound logic behind your argument, but I would have to politely disagree. I would prefer to have the system run via precedent, as it was for much of the history of English common law, than have a single monolithic power that decides everything.

SCOTUS does not deside everything. It is restricted only to issues of federal law, and the constitution. It has no power on state laws that do not have a constitutional question.

I do not find anything wrong with having various interpretations of the Constitution- you and I may disagree about the Second Amendment, if there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, and a billion other things. Is it bad that we have different interpretations? Of course not.

You and I disagreeing is not bad. However, the constitution applies nationally. Even if you and I disagree, we can NOT have a system where the constitution means different things in different places. This is fundamentally against what the constitution is.

justices won't have any real reason to change their interpretations to appease their voting bloc, seeing as how they're free and indepdenent and the fluctuation of districts has no effect on them other than a possible effect to their reputation (which is an important part of precedent- you don't follow the precedents of kooks and fools).

If anything this would make the courts MORE beholdant to regional views, as there would be pressure to "interpret" the constitution the way that region would. You honestly tell me that the court in texas would not feel pressure to deside an issue of abortion differently than a court in massachusettes would?

What you describe would create regional interpretations of the constitution. This CAN NOT STAND. The constitution, by definition, is two things. It is national, and it is supreme. This would effectivly gut the very things the constitution is supposed to be.