Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Because the judge must interpret that will. The People, Executive, Congress, and the States also interpret that will, and at various times, each of these 5 can have different interpretations on exactly what that supreme will is. Out of all these, the judiciary is in the best position to interpret the supreme will of the People, as expressed over generations, without influence from the passions of the current generation. The other 4 can be influenced by the current majority, being that the People are the majority, and they have much more control over the States, Executive, and Congress.

 

Simply changing a law may reflect the Will of the People as legislated by their elected representatives.

 

A judge takes no such oath.

What? When have the American people ever struck down SCOTUS's decision with a vote?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see your point. This country is governed by the Constitution, not merely the will of the people. The United States is not a direct democracy--it is a constitutional republic.

 

Simply decriminalizing something prevents it from becoming a judicial matter.

 

I'm still not following, sorry. My point is that the courts protect against tyranny of the majority. If the majority wants interracial marriage bans, and the court rules that interracial marriage bans are unconstitutional, then the majority will be overruled. There is no law the people can pass short of a Constitutional amendment that could override the court.

 

We could convince our elected representatives to simply come up with better laws.

 

Seeing you betray no cognizance of the glaring contradction in the remark I was responding to, we cannot converse intelligently on that. However, this needs addressing:

Ideally, interpretation of the Constitution would be as trivial a mental exercise as a musician interpreting sheet music, with the bulk of the judge's cogitative effort being expended on the application of constitutional provisions to the specifics of the instant case. That ideal is not realized for one of two reasons: the constitutional provisions in question are not perfectly clear, or the reader misinterprets those provisions. The latter is the case at least 90% of the time, and that in no small part because judges, unconsciously view "interpretation" as a process of divination.

This is a great example of how constitutional illiteracy can translate to false confidence.

I don't answer retarded questions, sorry for any inconvenience.

How very amusing.

 

The above is ad hominem and nothing more, so I can only assume you have no real argument in response.

 

Abject imbecilities don't merit an argument in response. Merely bearing witness to the fact that the proponent of said imbecilities doesn't know what the hell he's talking about is sufficient.

 

Perhaps I am not "intelligent" enough on the subject to understand your query or argument. I chimed in because a valid point was never mentioned in all these pages, the protection of the minority from the passions of the majority. Do you disagree that there are 5 groups that interpret the Constitution: The People, the States, the Exec, Congress, and SCOTUS? I'm trying to understand how deleting one of those interpreters helps government.

 

Do you consider the Constitution an expression of the "passions of the majority"? And if not, why not?

Yes. The People are not legally bound by the Constitution, so I don't know why They need to interpret it at all. As for the rest, since oaths of office are taken by individuals, I take issue with the idea that any group interprets the Constitution, as that could be taken to mean, e.g., that a General is bound by the CiC's interpretation rather than by the Constitution itself.

I'm not aware of having advocated any such thing.

 

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. It is never wise to give anyone absolute power.

We can fix this problem. Judges should not have lifetime appointments. They can remain independent of the Congress, the President and the immediate passions of the people by giving them terms in office longer than senators, representatives or the president. I personally like twelve years. We also need the means for the Congress and the people (acting through the state legislatures) to overturn any supreme court decision.

The courts should not decide how 300 million plus citizens live.

 

You do realize that by your own argument, Ted Cruz would not be eligible to run for President. His father was not a US Citizen when Ted was born. Only his mother. Plus Cruz was born in Canada and until recently held Canadian citizenship. At least Obama was born in the US. So the circumstances are identical except that Obama was actually born here, and not in a foreign country. So the fact of the matter is that regardless of one of his parents being a non-citizen, the other was, and he was born in the US. Obama has been a US citizen since birth.

 

Under the Constitution, the SCOTUS is mostly supposed to hear appeals, not to act as a trial court in cases such as Marbury's. Marshall pointed to a statute authorizing the SCOTUS to issue the kind of remedy that Marbury sought, a writ of mandamus ordering government officials to perform their legal duties. By enacting that statute, Marshall's opinion reasoned, Congress had attempted to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to act as a trial court in every case in which one party sought a writ of mandamus. Marshall managed to create a constitutional question about the power of the SCOTUS to engage in judicial review; A congressionally enacted statute directed the Court to act as a trial court in all cases involving claims to writs of mandamus, but the Constitution will permit the Court to exercise original or trial jurisdiction in only a narrower category of cases. So when the statute conflicts with the Constitution, by ordering what the Constitution forbids, which should a court follow, the statute or the Constitution?

With the question framed in this way, Marshall answered it easily, by giving the ruling for which Marbury is famous; It would defeat the purposes of a written Constitution if the courts had to enforce unconstitutional statutes. The courts must exercise judicial review because the Constitution is law, and it is the essence of the judicial function "to say what the law is".

 

I think Cruz is disqualified legally and John McCain, Alexander Hamilton and George Romney should have been.
I have a solution for judges: annual health and senility tests. At least 10 Supreme Court justices would have had to leave at least one year earlier, some under different Presidents.
At least one would have stayed longer. The suspense every year for some judges would be incredible.

 

None of those are examples of the American people striking down a SCOTUS decision with a vote.

 

I believe the States and the People have recourse to our Tenth and Ninth Amendments should the Judicature appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

 

Let me know when you want to have a discussion like a grown up. Calling people you disagree with imbeciles reflects more about the weakness of your position than theirs.

 

Before I bothered with that, I'd have to have some indication that you are capable in that respect.

is against PF rules, so I invite you to report me for what you vainly imagine I've done.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could go to the polls this November and see these referendum questions:
Should abortion be legal until the contractions are five minutes apart or a federal crime in all cases?
Should schools be segregated by race, culture and sexual preference?
Should states be permitted to charge high fees or demand long legal essays before people are permitted to vote?
Should publications be forbidden to print dirty words and government secrets?