Don't agree with the Judicial Decision, throw the judge in Prison!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nope... especially not for federal judges. For state judges, the courts can invoke that the Constitution says each state has to guarantee a republican form of government and they may claim that an independent judiciary is necessary for that.

That sounds weak.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I grant Drake the point that the Judicial branch is stronger then the founders likly intended it to be. BUT thats a good thing, the Judical branch has used its power to strike down grevous attacks on the constitution by other branches of goverment, the country would be much worse off now if not for many landmark supream court desisions. Basicaly, Checks and balances = Good

Conservatives attack the Judicial branch because it is the only branch of goverment they dont currently control. Their are two main reasons for this, one I think being a Judge and studying law realy dose make a person more liberal in the true sense of the word (thoughtfull, open to possibilites, not closeminded etc etc). Secondly the very long or lifetime terms of judges mean that this branch changes personel and position the slowest and thus the Conservative wave that hit American politics has yet to take control of it. Thus the current attitude that judges have to much power is nothing more then a shrill.

"ALL POWER MUST BE GIVEN TO THE BRANCHES OF GOVERMENT WE CONTROL!!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Conservatives attack the Judicial branch because it is the only branch of goverment they dont currently control.

That's not entirely true. Most of the federal judges in office now have been appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Clinton had a good chunk of time to appoint judges, but 8 years compared to 18 years (so far) in the last 26 years won't get a majority of judges of your political ilk.

[LordShiva]

Throw the judge down the well,
So my country can be free!

[DinoDoc]

So which cell block will the 9th Circuit be thrown in?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

WTF?!

Hell, why have a judiciary in this case.

To keep up appearances, duh

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So which cell block will the 9th Circuit be thrown in?

The 9th Circuit will be in the cell on the left.
The DC Circuit will be in the cell on the right.

[realpolitic]

The judicary is the weakest, SCOTUS only hears about 80 cases a year, and ruling something unconstitutional is rare, compared to the number of laws drafted each year. Some judicial review is guaranteed by the Magna Carta, so the founders intended some power. Who else should arbitrate the Supremecy Clause? This is flagrently unconstitutional, and it's time that judges got mad. Here are some recent rulings of unconstitionality:

Ninth Circuit: punishment for sleeping while homeless unconstitutional!

Los Vegas: preventing people from feeding others unconstitional

A California County: Topless women OK

The Judiciary is standing up to be counted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The judiciary today is far more powerful than it was ever intended to be,

So is the Presidency, which has become the most powerful branch of government, which it was never intended to be.

[TCO]

They are all more powerful then they were supposed to be.

[Nubclear]

Indeed. If we want to prevent people from feeding others, by God, its our right!

Activist judges

[Drake Tungsten]

So is the Presidency, which has become the most powerful branch of government, which it was never intended to be.

Agreed. Luckily presidents can only serve for 8 years and have more effective checks on their power.

[chequita guevara]

The Presidency hasn't been checked since Nixon, and only then because his conducts was so egregious.

The Courts only have as much power as Congress allows. If they don't want lifetime judges, they can change it. They can change the composition of the courts, what the courts are allowed to hear, pretty much anything except that SCOTUS has to exist and that it has original jurisdiction in two types of cases. The Courts are still exceptionally weak.

[Berzerker]

As long as they do the right thing, they have nothing to fear.

Umm...yeah... Whats the fuss? The people shouldn't have any power to deal with judges who screw up? A judge lets a child molestor walk and then the guy molests your kid and you have no cause for complaint?

[Drake Tungsten]

The Courts only have as much power as Congress allows. If they don't want lifetime judges, they can change it. They can change the composition of the courts, what the courts are allowed to hear, pretty much anything except that SCOTUS has to exist and that it has original jurisdiction in two types of cases.

What can Congress do to overrule a Supreme Court decision that it doesn't approve of?