Checks and Balances question

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OK, I have heard in the past that the U.S. has this elaborate system of checks and balances so that one branch of government doesn't have too much power over the other two. My question is what exactly is the check and balance to stop red diaper doper baby judges (not to mention religious wack jobs for those of you reading this that hate your country)? I'm not trying to start a OMG JUDGES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER flame war (but I'm expecting it nevertheless), but what exactly can the Legislative and Executive branches do to counter the Judicial branch? Please educate this poor soul that was raised in the public school system...

[CanadianChris 0]

Most of the checks and balances on the judiciary have to do with the nomination/confirmation process, although Congress does have the power to impeach judges.

[SuperJerk 0]

And so, with the question answered, this thread has now achieved its goal without a flame-war erupting.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not quite, hippie.

 

Confirming judges doesn't seem to be a "check and balance" in my book, because Congress and the President have to be "confirmed" by voters or the electoral college. And which judges can be impeached? I'm assuming that's all federal judges, sans Supreme Court. What I'm looking for is a "check and balance" to override a red diaper doper baby's ruling. They have the power to declare something unconstitutional, but is there anyway to override a ruling?...

[Perfxion 0]

amend the Constitution. That is the ONLY post ruling check and balance. See: Gay Marriage bullshit rullings/bullshit law makers/bullshit amendment.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My question is what exactly is the check and balance to stop red diaper doper baby judges (not to mention religious wack jobs for those of you reading this that hate your country)?

The President appoints the judges that go on the Supreme Court and have the ultimate power of authority of the judicial branch, that's what.

 

The power balance goes like this:

 

President can't write laws, Congress can.

President doesn't have to approve of the laws Congress sends him.

Courts can overturn law for being unconstitutional.

President appoints people to appear in the major leagues of the courts.

 

The way you override a ruling is to take it to a next higher court, topping out at the Supreme Court, and what they say goes. As recent events have proven, though, if the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear your whiny ass, the next court down basically gets to make what goes.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But that still doesn't sound like a power balance to me -- seems like all the judges have to do is get appointed. Even I know all this shit...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, it's generally considered that judges will do a better job when they aren't being heavily overwatched, beholden to the Constitution instead of the ever-changing winds of culture and popular opinion.

 

If you're asking this to find out who to complain to so that the fags won't get married, the feeding tube will be put back in, and the ten commandments will go back in the courthouse where they belong, can't help you. It all kind of boils down to personal style in whether decisions are made based on the spirit and implications of what's written in the constituion, or whether something explicitly appearing in there in black and white or not ("Well, it doesn't SAY anything about goat fucking being wrong...")

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OMG FLAMEBAITING *reports to mod*

 

That was the basis of my question: So judges have an advantage in regards to the three branches of government. I was wondering if perhaps there was something I wasn't aware of, like how Congress can override a veto with 2/3rds of a vote in both the House and Senate...

[Guest MikeSC]

OMG FLAMEBAITING *reports to mod*

 

That was the basis of my question: So judges have an advantage in regards to the three branches of government. I was wondering if perhaps there was something I wasn't aware of, like how Congress can override a veto with 2/3rds of a vote in both the House and Senate...

Well, as of right now, there is no real means of overturning a judge's ruling, which is a concern in some circles. I know some have theorized on a system where Congress is able to override a decision as they would a veto, but I don't foresee that happening. I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense than Congressional vetoes (since the President is the only politician elected by the entire country and not a small district), but I don't imagine that will happen in our lifetimes, either.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

The thought of elected officials being able to override court decisions give me the shivers. No one without a firm grasp of the law should be given that much power over the judicial process.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The thought of elected officials being able to override court decisions give me the shivers.

Decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson?

 

And the thought of one person in a robe telling millions of people how to live their lives gives me the shivers...

[SuperJerk 0]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

Yes, let's give Congress and the President absolute power. Brilliant.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

Yes, let's give Congress and the President absolute power. Brilliant.

Not absolute power. But every branch needs a check on it. The courts presently have no checks.

 

I'd rather Congress or the Presidency have more than the courts. And, as kkk pointed out, it's not like the Courts haven't made some unbelievably horrible decisions.

 

I find judicial fiat to be a darned non-democratic thing.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

Yes, let's give Congress and the President absolute power. Brilliant.

Not absolute power.

Under that scenario, the Congress could vote itself absolute power, then override the president's veto, and the Supreme Court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. No thanks.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

Yes, let's give Congress and the President absolute power. Brilliant.

Not absolute power.

Under that scenario, the Congress could vote itself absolute power, then override the president's veto, and the Supreme Court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. No thanks.

And I have zero faith that Congress could muster the votes to actually do that.

 

As it stands, Congress can't even muster enough votes to get votes on judicial nominees.

 

The Courts have just as much power to abuse their authority as the other branches --- and do so with more regularity.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think a system where the President is able to veto a decision would make more sense

I dunno about that. What's to stop a President late in his 1st term from vetoing something in order to play to a critical part of his base in order to help his re-election? You'd hope a President wouldn't play games like that, but there's no guarantee.

Well, then permit Congress to override the President's veto in this case. You do make a good point.

 

I only say allow the President because he is the only one who can claim a national mandate for his leadership.

-=Mike

Yes, let's give Congress and the President absolute power. Brilliant.

Not absolute power.

Under that scenario, the Congress could vote itself absolute power, then override the president's veto, and the Supreme Court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. No thanks.

And I have zero faith that Congress could muster the votes to actually do that.

How about we not take the risk and find out?

 

Besides, it wouldn't take a majority. It'd just take a majority of all the members present.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think it's FAR more likely that 5 justices would decide that they want to rule the country by fiat than finding 67 Senators to agree on anything.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Actually, my scenario for if the President could veto a court decision goes as follows..

 

Nixon vetoes the court decision in United States v. Nixon.

 

Seriously, giving somebody the potential power to override a court decision involving themselves is just opening the door to a form of dictatorship

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, my scenario for if the President could veto a court decision goes as follows..

 

Nixon vetoes the court decision in United States v. Nixon.

 

Seriously, giving somebody the potential power to override a court decision involving themselves is just opening the door to a form of dictatorship

But providing no means of overturning a horrid decision ALSO is a means of opening the door to a dictatorship.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So the judges could take over America.. really... *nods*

 

Name one actual law that the Supreme Court has created.