Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.
Congress can reduce its jurisdiction to nearly nothing and eliminate the lower courts.
It can also cut their pay.
The President can NOT change the number of Judges, that requires action from Congress.
The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.
I think FDR might disagree with you. He tried desperately to increase the size of the court because they kept striking down his policies. He lost.
The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.
I think FDR might disagree with you. He tried desperately to increase the size of the court because they kept striking down his policies. He lost.
Except the Court began finding FDR's programs Constitutional after the Court packing controversy, so in the long run he won, but lost some prestige. The saying at the time was: a stitch in time saved nine.
Two people voted NO ?
This country's educational system is in sad shape.
These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Two people voted NO ?
This country's educational system is in sad shape.
These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)
Don't you mean "which"?
Wait!!! Before you call me a spelling/grammar NAZI. I'm laughing because I do it and catch myself all the time. I wonder how many times, I don't catch myself.
Know for no and vice versa are also ones I catch a lot.
Immie
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article III section 1. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
While it does not specify that Congress can change the number of Judges at the Supreme Level it clearly states that Congress controls the number of courts and Judge numbers at all other levels. I would suggest that puts the power to change the Supreme with them also.
And no the Congress can not change the Authority that the Supreme Court has it to is listed in the Constitution.
I really don't care who you're referring to.As I said in another thread, the purpose of the SCOTUS is not to rubber-stamp the President's agenda.Hell yes they are! And it's high time for some-push back against the corporatist whores ruing out country.
Take a deep breath. I know this is shocking to you.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Who do you think I'm referring to as 'corporatist whores'? (Hint: read some of my other posts)
Yes. Democrats do what they do because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation."...or are they doing because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation."Sure they do. And it's a pretty big power.
The question becomes are they doing to sustain the integrity of the Republic by adhering to the Constitution..or are they doing because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation.
By the way..Congress has an awful lot of power too..as does the executive branch. So when you start the ball rolling on this shit..the risks are pretty high.
Oh, you mean like everything Democrats do.
There's a huge difference between Democrats and Judges.
These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)
Don't you mean "which"?
Wait!!! Before you call me a spelling/grammar NAZI. I'm laughing because I do it and catch myself all the time. I wonder how many times, I don't catch myself.
Know for no and vice versa are also ones I catch a lot.
Immie
I don't know Immie...I think it's legit to call out someone's grasp of the English language. I mean granted this may not be an English class but it's not like gravity stops working when you leave science class. Just saying.
Two people voted NO ?
This country's educational system is in sad shape.
These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)
Don't you mean "which"?
Wait!!! Before you call me a spelling/grammar NAZI. I'm laughing because I do it and catch myself all the time. I wonder how many times, I don't catch myself.
Know for no and vice versa are also ones I catch a lot.
Immie
These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)
Don't you mean "which"?
Wait!!! Before you call me a spelling/grammar NAZI. I'm laughing because I do it and catch myself all the time. I wonder how many times, I don't catch myself.
Know for no and vice versa are also ones I catch a lot.
Immie
Waited a little! Now you spelling/grammar NAZI. Gooser! (not the beer Gösser) which witch was of the witch list of thankers as a witch trainee was in them witch schools of lesser learnings? One couldnt grad to a warlock status btw! You NAZI witchcraft trailblazer pig!
My shot at a twisted witch twitcher!Don't you mean "which"?
Wait!!! Before you call me a spelling/grammar NAZI. I'm laughing because I do it and catch myself all the time. I wonder how many times, I don't catch myself.
Know for no and vice versa are also ones I catch a lot.
Immie
Waited a little! Now you spelling/grammar NAZI. Gooser! (not the beer Gösser) which witch was of the witch “list” of thanker’s as a witch trainee was in them witch schools of lesser learning’s? One couldn’t grad to a warlock status btw! You NAZI witchcraft trailblazer pig!
You been watching Harry Potter too much lately, haven't you?
BTW try reading that post three times as fast as you can!
Immie
Well I guess that depends on how you look at it. The SCOTUS seized the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and Jefferson just went with it because he was between a rock and a hard place. According to the constitution they are not guaranteed that power...according to tradition they are. Basically, the answer is "yes" they do but not because they are constitutionally guaranteed such power. It's because Chief Justice John Marshall said so and no one bitched.
They do if the laws are unconstitutional, imho.Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
It isn't just an opinion. it is their constitutional duty to strike down and overturn laws that are unconstitutional- NOT to try and figure out how to bypass and ignore the Constitution. They were right when they said this law would permanently change the relationship of the citizen with government, empowering government to control the individual in a manner the system was never designed to do. It essentially turns the individual from a citizen who gives his consent to be governed -to a subject who is ruled over who must do whatever the ruling elite orders them to do -or else. This would immediately nullify the Constitution and throw wide open the door for establishing the authority of government to order citizens to spend their money the way overnment orders them to for ANYTHING since the commerce clause can be perverted to include everything that can be bought. It would essentially strip people of control of their lives and establish us all as government owned property with only the privileges government ALLOWS us to have. And the Bill of Rights just a bad joke.
I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain government's sudden claim to a new power insisting the individual must forfeit control of his own health care decisions, even against his will -when the individual actually has a right to keep total control by cutting out the middleman insurance entirely? In other words, if I choose to pay for my own medical care directly instead of paying far more to a third party than I would choose to pay if paying directly -then where does government get off ordering me to forfeit control of MY health care decisions to a third party against my will? To say nothing of the idiocy of the left pretending eliminating competition would not only lower costs, but moronically insist quality would not only not be negatively affected, it would improve! Really? Name ONE industry where eliminating competition results in lower costs and better quality -and remind me again why we have laws against monopolies? Government regulated monopolies given to utility companies is not done because it results in lower costs and higher quality -it provably does neither. They are given for a different reason that would never apply to medical care.
No way they uphold the mandate and probably throw out the entire law since government argued the mandate could not be severed from the law. In addition, they didn't seem inclined to go through tens of thousands of pages members of Congress who passed it hadn't bothered to read -to try and figure out line by line what could stand without that mandate.
More than 40 years ago a lawyer told me the legal profession had set its sights on medical care as being vulnerable to a take over by lawyers who would gladly destroy the entire system if it meant empowering lawyers. Especially after seeing how quickly power was diverted from both patient and doctor in the UK and believed the same could be one here nearly as fast. We live in a country where the legal profession is ridiculously over represented and can only justify their bloated, useless numbers and spitting out enormous numbers more every year by shifting power to themselves as a "natural" ruling elite and convincing Americans they cannot survive, they cannot provide for hems elves, cannot succeed in life and cannot even be trusted to self govern -unless attorneys are running the show. Their most important success in that was convincing Americans that the founders were wrong and that the common citizen cannot and should rarely hold elected government office and to leave it to lawyers instead. This enabled them to then use the force and power of government to expand their powers from there. I propose an Amendment limiting the number of lawyers allowed to serve in government at any given time along with term limits on every elected office. No one group has done more harm to this nation than career politicians, 98 percent of whom are lawyers. Nothing special about lawyers whatsoever -the fact they are the most over represented occupation tells you how easy it is to get a law degree. Much easier than it is to get any number of other degrees but they are arrogantly convinced they can do anyone's job better than those who do it for a living. That lawyer was off on how long he thought it would take but said it was inevitable because lawyers have no natural predators and no self monitoring or self control, ethics are given meaningless lip service and state bars look for ways to avoid enforcing any notion of holding to ethical practice. The lawyers are the predators who see themselves at the top of the food chain and will be satisfied with nothing less than the power to go with it.
Yes. When there is a “plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v. Morrison (2000).
Who stops the court from exceeding theirs? Namely, the fact that the constitution doesn't grant them the power of judicial review?
Where are the checks and balances on the judicial branch?
Correct.The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article III section 1. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
While it does not specify that Congress can change the number of Judges at the Supreme Level it clearly states that Congress controls the number of courts and Judge numbers at all other levels. I would suggest that puts the power to change the Supreme with them also.
And no the Congress can not change the Authority that the Supreme Court has it to is listed in the Constitution.
Blue, I'm a dismal history student and am not certain why Chief Justice Marshall pounded his gavel into the American conscience.Well I guess that depends on how you look at it. The SCOTUS seized the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and Jefferson just went with it because he was between a rock and a hard place. According to the constitution they are not guaranteed that power...according to tradition they are. Basically, the answer is "yes" they do but not because they are constitutionally guaranteed such power. It's because Chief Justice John Marshall said so and no one bitched.
The have the authority to strike down laws but they do not have the power to force the government to follow their decisions.
