Bush v. Gore wasn't really am issue for supreme court. Gore won the popular vote, but presidents are elected by electoral college as was established by the constitution. They obeyed the constitution.
Not sure what this was about
They are supposed to obey, not rule, perhaps it is time for a re staffing. After all they are not kings
Actually, the SCOTUS is absolutely supposed to rule, that is what we charge them to do. The only thing they are expected to "Obey"...would be existing law.
I actually just said that, the law is the constitution. they obey that, its their job. If they don't do their job its time to fire them.
The Congress and President makes the law, and if it the Constitutionality is challenged, the Supreme Court determines whether it is valid. Just as we just saw with the healthcare law. This is a core function of the judicial system- to figure out what it deems the correct interpretation of the Constitution and determine if a law is Constitutional. So in the case that clax and Nemo are talking about, no the people do not have the final word- the Supreme Court does. The people have the word when they sway the electoral college and then lobby Congress and the President. They can always try to get a law repealed in Congress, but that is a different story.
Besides, there is often not 1 final word from the people, but many, as you can see here. The courts decide which one stands as per the Constitution and the law.
The Supreme Court determines validity, if I'm not mistaken, by interpreting the intent of We the People when writing our laws. All laws derive from our House of Representatives, voted on involving the Senate, then signed or declined by our President. The Supreme Court is by design, again if I'm not mistaken, to interpret law to settle differences based on the intent of both our Founders who were nothing but our original lawmakers, and We the People of these United States.
Should We the People disagree with any Supreme Court decision, we amend our Constitiution as has been done many times, and make the Court clear on the intent of We the People. We and not our Courts are the ultimate decision makers.
No. The Supreme Court are the ultimate decision makers on those matters within the grant of judicial power under the Constitution. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. In this, the power of the judicial branch is limited; and the federal courts have always been self-limiting under long-standing provisions of abstention and principles of comity; and more recently under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . ." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
NB: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Congress removed the court’’s jurisdiction over military tribunals by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).
Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . ." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
NB: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Congress removed the court’’s jurisdiction over military tribunals by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).
They are servants of the law; and they may not be removed for making decisions that are unpopular but nevertheless binding as federal law. Get used to it.
But to blatantly brake federal law, that is a dismissable offense. I am not going to get used to it. They work for us. I am not comfortable just laying down and dieing. the only reason they get away with it is because people with that mentality. This is my country, they just work here. The vast partisan split climate in this country is not the time to be pretending you are a monarch. The people will not be oppressed. Out just takes more people like me.
The just except it people will simply be ruled. This us their choice they want this.
Similar threads
