How to Check an Imperious Judiciary

Ekklesian said:
LOL. You would have to consult the state constitutions.
Click to expand...
Gosh, it’s hard to have a conversation with you. The answer is “no.” Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no court system. Under the Constitution, Article III created the Supreme Court. The Framers also provided Congress with the ability to create lower federal courts as needed, hence the Judiciary Act of 1789 which created district and circuit courts.

I understand we have a dual court system, but, we are not required to have a dual court system according to the Constitution. Do you understand now?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
What do you want to do, eliminate the judicial branch and just have legislative and executive branches?
Click to expand...

The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret and apply laws, to make sure they are constitutional. A judge that issues injunctions enjoining the executive branch from enforcing a duly enacted law is exceeding his authority. As such, I'd say he should be ignored until such a time as the Supreme Court rules that the legislation or executive order is unconstitutional, i.e. it wasn't duly enacted. If the Supreme Court is indeed the only court the Constitution requires, then it's odd to me that a lower court would have the power to overrule the president.
 
Last edited:
DrHuk&Duck said:
Gosh, it’s hard to have a conversation with you. The answer is “no.” Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no court system. Under the Constitution, Article III created the Supreme Court. The Framers also provided Congress with the ability to create lower federal courts as needed, hence the Judiciary Act of 1789 which created district and circuit courts.

I understand we have a dual court system, but, we are not required to have a dual court system according to the Constitution. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
Lower courts have no jurisdiction over the Executive Branch. Only the Supreme Court does. The use of Lawfare by the left is a tactic that is going to blow up in their faces and blow them farther out of the water...we hope! ;)
 
Ransom said:
The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret and apply laws, to make sure they are constitutional. A judge that issues injunctions enjoining the executive branch from enforcing a duly enacted law is exceeding his authority. As such, I'd say he should be ignored until such a time as the Supreme Court rules that the legislation or executive order is unconstitutional, i.e. it wasn't duly enacted. If the Supreme Court is indeed the only court the Constitution requires, then it's odd to me that a lower court would have the power to overrule the president.
Click to expand...
It might seem odd, but based on the current system, this is how it works. The SC is, after all, an appellate court, the reason it’s referred to as the “court of last resort.” It’s often said its decisions are binding, but that’s not really true. Had it not reversed Plessy v. Ferguson, we’d still have segregated schools in America.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
It might seem odd, but based on the current system, this is how it works. The SC is, after all, an appellate court, the reason it’s referred to as the “court of last resort.”
Click to expand...

SCOTUS may be a court of appeals, but it also has original jurisdiction over cases involving a state or involving ambassadors or other ministers representing the US. It also has the power of judicial review and the ability to strike down presidential directives that are unlawful.

Seems to me it's not that much of a stretch to give SCOTUS judicial review of executive orders exclusively. That's got to be a more efficient alternative to some arbitrary judge deciding to issue an injunction, and the whole thing having to work its way through the appellate courts for years. Imagine the Supreme Court having its hands tied on an urgent matter of national importance, because they have to wait for two other levels of appeal first, and meanwhile they're too busy hearing a case concerning whether otherkin teenagers in Oregon are allowed to marry their cats.

It’s often said its decisions are binding, but that’s not really true. Had it not reversed Plessy v. Ferguson, we’d still have segregated schools in America.
Click to expand...

Obviously SCOTUS has to have the power to reverse itself. Otherwise, you'd have a ridiculous situation where a really bad ruling like Plessy was irrevocable.
 
Ransom said:
SCOTUS may be a court of appeals, but it also has original jurisdiction over cases involving a state or involving ambassadors or other ministers representing the US. It also has the power of judicial review and the ability to strike down presidential directives that are unlawful.
Click to expand...
Yep.
Ransom said:
Seems to me it's not that much of a stretch to give SCOTUS judicial review of executive orders exclusively. That's got to be a more efficient alternative to some arbitrary judge deciding to issue an injunction, and the whole thing having to work its way through the appellate courts for years. Imagine the Supreme Court having its hands tied on an urgent matter of national importance, because they have to wait for two other levels of appeal first, and meanwhile they're too busy hearing a case concerning whether otherkin teenagers in Oregon are allowed to marry their cats.
Click to expand...
These EOs are nothing more than what I refer to as “temporary laws.” Every president has the power to rescind or amend the EOs of his predecessor, which is exactly what Trump did to Biden, and Biden did to Trump, and Trump did to Obama, ad nauseam. Congress can essentially pass a law that reverses an EO it dislikes anyway. Additionally, oftentimes it’s not the entire EO that is challenged in court, but rather a small part of it, such as one little statute—not necessarily the need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I understand we have a dual court system,
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem that you do.

DrHuk&Duck said:
but, we are not required to have a dual court system according to the Constitution. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
The Constitution of the United States is about the structure, authority and scope of the federal government.

The states must form their own republican form of government, which requires a judiciary. The SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over state court decisions which deal with state law, and their final judgments cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS, unless there is some federal question involved. Do you understand now?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top