If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can perpetuate it by >refusing to consider it indefinitely.
"S K" wrote in message news:33a68f76-3b5f-4ab7-b103-0a51980b91c3n@googlegroups.com...
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can perpetuate
it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the Constitution.
--
"S K" wrote
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can
perpetuate it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the
Constitution.
On 6/29/2022 8:35 AM, Rick wrote:
"S K" wrote in message
news:33a68f76-3b5f-4ab7...@googlegroups.com...
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can perpetuate
it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the Constitution.
--Of course, the justices can be removed by Congress. It is part of the
checks and balances.
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can perpetuate it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 11:42:59 AM UTC-4, Roy wrote:
On 6/29/2022 8:35 AM, Rick wrote:
"S K" wrote in messageOf course, the justices can be removed by Congress. It is part of the
news:33a68f76-3b5f-4ab7...@googlegroups.com...
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can perpetuate
it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the Constitution.
--
checks and balances.
only for acts of commission. I can't imagine how there can be impeachment for NOT acting - stare decisis.
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can
perpetuate it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the
Constitution.
It wasn't that long ago that there were certain cases the Supreme Court
was required to take. They asked Congress to change that, and it was
done. It can be undone too.
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can
perpetuate it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the
Constitution.
It wasn't that long ago that there were certain cases the Supreme
Court was required to take. They asked Congress to change that,
and it was done. It can be undone too.
I don't think that would make any practical difference. If the law
changed to reinstate writs of error, so the court was required to
take any appeal, the court could just blow off the ones they don't
want to take with a one sentence per curiam opinion saying the
decision of the lower court is affirmed.
The US supreme court is tiny compared to most other countries.
When the court size was set at 9 in 1869, the population of the US
was about 38 million. If the court had grown with the US
population, we would now have 80 justices. Imagine if our court
was like European ones, with large numbers of justices sitting in
panels. That makes judges a lot less aggressive since if one panel
does something wacky, the next panel can undo it.
The Congress could absolutely do that. There is nothing in the
Constitution about how big the court is or what its procedures
are, only that it exists and that judges serve "during good
behavior" which means until they die or retire. You can make a
good case that the Congress could rotate judges, e.g., you're
appointed to the supreme court for a decade, then you rotate off
to one of the circuits.
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
If an injustice is the status quo - the Supreme Court can
perpetuate it by refusing to consider it indefinitely.
By definition, the Supreme Court DOES have what could be called
dictatorial power. That's well known and built into the
Constitution.
It wasn't that long ago that there were certain cases the Supreme
Court was required to take. They asked Congress to change that,
and it was done. It can be undone too.
I don't think that would make any practical difference. If the law
changed to reinstate writs of error, so the court was required to
take any appeal, the court could just blow off the ones they don't
want to take with a one sentence per curiam opinion saying the
decision of the lower court is affirmed.
Which is exactly what they did. They would typically get 5-6,000
cases each year, which they would decide summarily (similar to what
they call the shadow docket).
The US supreme court is tiny compared to most other countries.
When the court size was set at 9 in 1869, the population of the US
was about 38 million. If the court had grown with the US
population, we would now have 80 justices. Imagine if our court
was like European ones, with large numbers of justices sitting in
panels. That makes judges a lot less aggressive since if one panel
does something wacky, the next panel can undo it.
The Congress could absolutely do that. There is nothing in the
Constitution about how big the court is or what its procedures
are, only that it exists and that judges serve "during good
behavior" which means until they die or retire. You can make a
good case that the Congress could rotate judges, e.g., you're
appointed to the supreme court for a decade, then you rotate off
to one of the circuits.
The Court used to take about 100 cases per year. That has declied to
about 50 per year. So the Courts of Appeal, which have grown over
time, and state Supreme Courts, have become more important and more >influential.
The Court used to take about 100 cases per year. That has declied to
about 50 per year.
So the Courts of Appeal, which have grown over
time, and state Supreme Courts, have become more important and more >influential.
(Not serious, but a year has passed and I want to see if I can
post to as well as read this ng.)
micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
(Not serious, but a year has passed and I want to see if I can
post to as well as read this ng.)
Nah, never saw your message. :-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 360 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:22:23 |
| Calls: | 7,686 |
| Files: | 12,831 |
| Messages: | 5,711,621 |