The United States Supreme Court

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

For the past week I have gotten the impression that the Supreme Court consists of nine gods whose words are law. To oppose the word of these deities is a great sin.

I understand why there is such reverence for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution so they wield great power and they are always fair and just because they define what is fair and just. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, they don't have to run for election every two-six years and therefore they don't get their reputations continuously tarnished or have to keep campaign promises. One rarely hears anything bad said about a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court building even reminds me of the Parthenon - the Temple of Athena. Only, instead of carvings of the Greek Gods, the Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and Muhammad.

So what do you all think of the US Supreme Court?

 

[Masquerouge]

I think the Supreme Court is one of the neatest things to have in a federation such as the United States.

 

[Nylan]

Checks and balances

It's a very well thought out system...save partisanship

 

[Irish Caesar]

It would be cool if it had some way to enforce its decisions.

The Supreme Court has a carving of Muhammad? That sounds very bizarre for at least a couple of reasons...

 

[Masquerouge]

It would be cool if it had some way to enforce its decisions.

The Supreme Court has a carving of Muhammad? That sounds very bizarre for at least a couple of reasons...

I think it's Muhammad Ali.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Only, instead of carvings of the Greek Gods, the Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and Muhammad

There was a ruckuss about this in my law class last year. There are also 16 other secular figures along with those two. They are there because of their significance as historic law makers. Not their religous significance.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It would be cool if it had some way to enforce its decisions.

The Supreme Court has a carving of Muhammad? That sounds very bizarre for at least a couple of reasons...

Check out the wikipedia entry on it. It is quite interesting.

 

[IglooDame]

The Supreme Court is like your parents - they're not always correct, but you still gotta do what they say.

I've not been particularly fond of their tendency to seize on some aspect of a case no one cares about in order to develop their ruling, but such is life.

 

[Bill3000]

The Supreme Court is one of the most effective checks against the tyranny of the majority. Of course they are revered as gods - because a non-democratic element is needed to check the democratic elements in order to prevent the downsides of democracy.

 

[.Shane.]

It would be cool if it had some way to enforce its decisions.

No, it wouldn't. One of the checks on their power is that they don't have their own "police" force.

That said, I think the SC is a great institution. My favorite thing is that it allows people to follow their conscience and, thus, is very free of partisanship. Sure, some justices are predictable in their habits, but very often appointees run completely counter to the viewpoint of those who appointed them (Earl Warren comes to mind). Don't be shocked if John Roberts rules very fairly and ends up being labeled an 'activist' or summat the first time he disappoints the right wing.

 

[Irish Caesar]

No, it wouldn't. One of the checks on their power is that they don't have their own "police" force.

Perhaps, but it doesn't give them much opportunity to check the legislature or the executive. And sometimes a check is needed. The hockey kind.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Tocqueville once said that not a single actual problem doesn't get resolved in the judiciary. Sometimes, the legislative branch are unable to enact certain laws because of circumstance (lose of votes). In that case, it's rather important to have those king of men create law and resolve real problems. Because otherwise, it just would never be resolved.

Although the Supreme Court theoretically can have a little too much power sometimes, but that's where Legal Realism comes in. They're not going to be so drunk with power that they create laws without regard for the concern and beliefs of the "people". And most of their decisions reflect this, so in a way, they do in fact mimic the legislative, and hark back to the premises of common law.

In my opinion? They're a necessary evil. The U.S. gov't would otherwise have a hell of a lot harder time making laws with the purpose of instilling justice, fairness, and reform.

 

[downtown]

Perhaps, but it doesn't give them much opportunity to check the legislature or the executive. And sometimes a check is needed. The hockey kind.

Like Ginsburg could rake up the strength to body check somebody.

Inter-Branch hockey games! I've found a way to solve the budget crisis! Who wants to see Karl Rove and Ted Kennedy play hockey against each other? I DO!!

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The one thing I don't like the Supreme Court is that there is no recourse if you disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution or other laws especially when there shouldn't be any ambiguity. My favorite, although silly, example is how the Supreme Court ruled that the tomato is a vegetable which overturned every notion of biology.


I have another question. What would you do/say/think if congress+president passed a law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional yet congress+president refuse to listen? This actually has happened in US history...

 

[bhsup]

Just a few words from one of our Fathers...

...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

 

[Irish Caesar]

I have another question. What would you do/say/think if congress+president passed a law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional yet congress+president refuse to listen? This actually has happened in US history...

Generally we deify the president in this case.

Just a few words from one of our Fathers...

Isn't that a necessary evil to check the other two despotic branches?

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, maybe. I don't know if there is a better solution. Jefferson was of the opinion that each branch should sit in counsel on itself to determine what was constitutional for each branch. I'm definitely not wild about that approach either, but I also don't like how it works now. Basically, the Supreme Court, in one of its earliest rulings, gave itself the power to determine the Constitutionality of all laws passed. Something kind of sucky, power-grabby about that.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Yeah, maybe. I don't know if there is a better solution. Jefferson was of the opinion that each branch should sit in counsel on itself to determine what was constitutional for each branch. I'm definitely not wild about that approach either, but I also don't like how it works now. Basically, the Supreme Court, in one of its earliest rulings, gave itself the power to determine the Constitutionality of all laws passed. Something kind of sucky, power-grabby about that.

Perhaps, but his system would require everyone in office to be like Jefferson. The way the system works now, it doesn't all collapse when we elect people who don't think.

 

[Godwynn]

It would be cool if it had some way to enforce its decisions.

The Supreme Court has a carving of Muhammad? That sounds very bizarre for at least a couple of reasons...

I wonder why Muslims haven't gone apehorsehocky over this.

n 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded the Supreme Court remove the image of Muhammad from the marble frieze of the façade. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court’s pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship.’’ The court later added a footnote to tourist materials describing the frieze, calling it a “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad.’’

 

[amadeus]

In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded the Supreme Court remove the image of Muhammad from the marble frieze of the façade.

I guess this is the one thing I agree with from the Council on American-Terrorist Relations.