tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post6821886756447968648..comments2024-03-22T02:37:10.429-05:00Comments on Political Friends: Habeas Corpus (Part Two)Andy Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-24439248368042441172008-06-27T21:37:00.000-05:002008-06-27T21:37:00.000-05:00I would like to remind you Andy that justices tend...I would like to remind you Andy that justices tend to evolve in their views after they have been on the court. Your plan to add justices that have your same viewpoint could work perfectly, but it could just as easily blow up in your face. <BR/><BR/>And the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, meaning they can strike down any law they deem unconstitutional and God knows that just because the idiots in Congress vote on and the idiot-in-chief (and no this is a specific attack on Bush) signs a bill into law doesn't mean that it's good law and should be above challenge. <BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court did not infringe on the Separation of Powers, they were acting as a check on the executive and legislative branches, something they do all the time. It's what keeps our Supreme Court and the judicial branch from becoming like Russia's powerless courts. <BR/><BR/>You also missed the most obvious and easiest solution to your crisis, have Congress pass a law restricting the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving the detainees.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03593704061087703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-52765180004652580992008-06-26T16:39:00.000-05:002008-06-26T16:39:00.000-05:00Good question, and my answer is going to be for Su...Good question, and my answer is going to be for Supreme Court Justices or for Federal Judges. There are three ways the other branches can keep the Judicial branch in check:<BR/><BR/>1) Any Judge (including a Supreme Court Justice) can be impeached from office. Samuel Chase is the only Supreme Court Justice to have ever been impeached. It is extraordinarily tough to do (as it should be) but it can be done.<BR/><BR/>2) The Congress can set the number of judges. As noted above, this has been done in the past. Congress has added and removed judges from the Supreme Court.<BR/><BR/>3) Congress can decide the jurisdiction of the courts. The Supreme Court does have a few areas that are spelled out in the Constitution, but even that can be changed. If Congress decides that either federal courts, or the Supreme Court is out of touch with the general populace, it can remove an area from the jurisdiction of the court.<BR/><BR/><BR/>There is one important note to also consider. The Supreme Court has no enforcement power. Technically, the Executive branch of government is the enforcement portion. In times past, the President of the United States has decided not to enforce decisions of the Supreme Court.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-25161224634065689062008-06-26T08:13:00.000-05:002008-06-26T08:13:00.000-05:00Maybe I missed something in the post, and I'm goin...Maybe I missed something in the post, and I'm going to show how much politics I have forgotten from school, but isn't there some sort of avenue for the Executive and Legislative branches to keep the Judicial branch in check?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-64280615600584894192008-06-25T16:57:00.000-05:002008-06-25T16:57:00.000-05:00It only gives power to Obama if Obama is elected. ...It only gives power to Obama if Obama is elected. And if you arn't crazy about adding judges, we could restrict the judges. Most people believe that at least two justices will step down during the next President's term (whether that be Obama or McCain). Congress could act and say that the next two spots are to be removed when the justices step down.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-22916833924821168962008-06-25T07:54:00.000-05:002008-06-25T07:54:00.000-05:00You do realize that expanding the supreme court, l...You do realize that expanding the supreme court, like warrantless wiretapping. might give a lot of power to Obama? I say might, I'm not assuming anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-16173491894245125912008-06-25T07:22:00.000-05:002008-06-25T07:22:00.000-05:00Adding justices to the supreme court is probably t...Adding justices to the supreme court is probably the worst thing ever at this time. If we push for this and congress acts on it I see it going one of 2 ways. They do not actually act on it until after Jan. 20, 2009 or if they do act on it, I do not see them confirming anybody until after Jan. 20, 2009. As we are looking at another 2 years of democratic control of the congress and 4 years of democratic control in the white house giving the supreme court a chance to make an overwhelming majority of justices be liberal leaning for as long as they want to stay there is an awful idea. Of course I am basing this on an Obama win, which is an if, but allowing him to pick justices that will back him every step of the way and a congress that will do what ever he asks and no media coverage that will talk bad about him is a very real possibility. That could lead to some socialist, communist, anti-traditional americanist, anti business, far left wing etc. programs and policies that will bring about stuff I can not even imagine. That sir, is a hell of a lot more scary than some terrorist have a day in court.<BR/><BR/>You call yourself a believer in the "Law of Unintended Consequences." You should have seen the foolishness in your suggestion because while your idea for a court that carries less individual power per person is a good idea, the consequences of it could very well be disastrous.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15095193381922042863noreply@blogger.com