Congress could legally expand the number of spots on the Court and have the President fill up the vacancies with Justices who hold a more favorable position. Let’s say 5 out of 9 Justices make a completely ridiculous decision. Add 2 more spots to the court. Now you have 6 to 5 in favor of a more sane decision. FDR once proposed a plan to expand the court, but it was met with much disfavor.
You’d have to get a majority of Congress and the President behind you who believe that the situation is so extreme that we have to alter the court in order to fix things.
Or you could impeach the offending justices. Or ratify a Constitutional Amendment. But theoretically it would be easier to pack the court or impeach the justices.
To further expand on what I said above, it is also possible for the executive branch to decide to ignore the Supreme Court, and do what it wants anyways. For instance, in 1832, the Supreme Court found the Indian Removal Act be unconstitutional,Worcester v. Georgia and that the Cherokee Indians were entiltled to federal protection from state governments. But President Jackson decided to defy the Supreme Court, and sent in troops to force the Cherokee to that god-forsaken land of Oklahoma.
First off, when the Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional issue, the sole way to overturn their decision is by Constitutional amendment. But this is by no means an exceedingly rare occurrence: it dates from 1790, when the Eleventh Amendment reversed Chisholm v. Georgia. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments effectively reversed Scott v. Sandford. The Sixteenth threw out Pollock v. Farmer’s Trust and Loan. And within the lifetimes of the older board members, the 24th and 26th Amendments reversed SCOTUS decisions (the particular cases are not quickly at my fingertips).
But only about 44% of SCOTUS cases involve Constitutional issues. And Congress regularly reverses cases in which the Court interprets Federal statutes, by passing new statutes that change or clarify the law on which the court ruled. For example, the unanimous 1988 decision in Westfall v. Irwin found that statute law stringently limited the immunity of Federal employees from lawsuits. The Court strongly urged Congress to change the law, stating that it was required to rule on the law as it stood, and within twelve months Congress had passed a new statute reversing Westfall.
It also has to be remembered that often a case depends not on the constitutionality of a Federal or state statute itself, but on the way in which it is applied. For a municipality to modify its boundaries by annexing or abandoning contiguous land is certainly well within its state-granted powers in most states, and within the powers of the state legislature in those states where the municipality does not possess that power itself. But in the case of Tuskegee, AL, the city council’s decision to redraw municipal boundaries to exclude virtually all black citizens was held to be unconstitutional – because of the intent underlying the act. Examples from the criminal law field abound – I remember reading recently of a case where a prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to exclude all people of a given protected group from the jury panel. The Court’s usual holding in such cases is that abuse will not be permitted but that abuse will not preclude just use.
Well, to be fair, it’s easy to get hung up on the fact that you’re more likely to have misconceptions about the court’s processes when you demonstrate that you don’t understand them. If the OP doesn’t know how cases get to the court, it’s useful to look briefly at the process because it contributes to a general understanding of the way the system works.
In a thread that’s essentially about the powers of the Supreme Court relative to the other branches, it’s also relevant to point out that the court isn’t just a bunch of old people who sit around making laws up and declaring them valid in one fell swoop. As Polycarp noted, the ways the Supreme Court can be overturned are limited because the topics the court can rule on are limited.
In that case why did you bother to make up a hypothetical? The OP could have read, “Make up a hypothetical about overturning the Supreme Court and then answer it.”
One reason that it is important to make this distinction is that there are people who are unhappy with the Supreme Court over some decision they made, who use the argument that the Court is overstepping its powers and in effect legislating. This claim has been made in regard to Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, rulings on school busing, etc.. The hypothetical in the OP represents a blantant case of the judical branch upsurping the power of the legislative branch. To me the ferrets case sounds like someone speculating on where a decision in favor of gay marriage might lead us. :eek:
I suppose Congress could plausably come up with the argument that the Justices deliberately violated their oath of office to Protect and Defend the Constitution by choosing to interpret it in an absurd way that ignores the wording of the Constitution itself, and call that an impeachable offense.
Impeachment has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a nonjusticiable “Political Question” beyond the review of the courts and separate from the normal criminal justice system. NIXON v. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) So it’s quite possible that Congress could remove justices for their decisions without any subsequent criminal prosecutions taking place.
Here’s a twist: What if the SCOTUS up and declares Marbury v. Madison to be unconstitutional?? :eek:
Hardly any Americans know about M.v.M. (or at least they’ve forgotten since high school government class…sheesh, it’s only THE most important ruling in SCOTUS history) so I could just see the media let it slip by on page 32 and nobody would realize that 1/3 of our government just collapsed…
There is pretty good evidence that an impeachment can be made on whatever grounds a majority of the House of Representatives chooses to impeach on. And that a 2/3 majority in the Senate may convict on whatever grounds the House alleges in its Articles of Impeachment.
But cases ranging from the impeachment of Justice Chase in 1805 to the two Presidential impeachments indicate that the Senate will not convict except on definite grounds of malfeasance or nonfeasance in office. And “making decisions we disagree with” is not sufficient grounds for a conviction, based on precedent.
For the record, it doesn’t necessarily always go that way. Justice Souter was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush, and he has sided with the liberals more often than not.
I believe that would make us quite liberal. In fact, another word for libertarian is “classical liberal”. As the terms have evolved today, we are neither liberal nor conservative, although broadly, we are perceived as liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues.
True. Republicans support school prayer, and oppose gay rights. How is it favoring less government by getting the government involved with religion, and what people do in bed in their own homes? Libertarians are at least consistent in that they want less government across the board.
Yes, in a way, but that can be misleading. Libertarians are not anarchists. What they want is government focused on the solitary task of suppressing coercion and nothing else. It must be however big it must be to do that. Noncoercion is the very heart of libertarianism.
Here you go, Poly:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li][li] XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li][li] XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li][li] XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li][li] XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) ;[/li][li] XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li][*] XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/ul]
So, the Supreme Court can rule that parts of the constitution and/or its amendments are no longer valid? hmmm sounds familiar
Kinda like capital punishment? It’s cruel and unusual er… wait a minute…no it’s not.
Marbury vs. Madison? That’s the one where the SCOTUS (Marshall) claims the court is the ultimate power in the government and has the final say on what is or is not constitutional.
Looks like another debate in the wrong forum doesn’t it? I think I’ll let y’all fight this one out.
I’m at a loss as to what in this thread would lead you to that conclusion, but then I’m at a loss as to what anywhere would lead you to that conclusion. Because that conclusion is wrong. SCOTUS does not have the power to declare parts of the Constitution unconstitutional. This has been explained to you before. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. SCOTUS decides whether laws are in accordance with the terms of the Constitution. SCOTUS does not say “this portion of the Constitution no longer applies,” unless the Constitution has been amended in accordance with the provisions contained therein.
Simply put, SCOTUS struck down capital punishment in url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=408&invol=238]FURMAN v. GEORGIA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) as “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based on the application of the penalty by the states. Later, in response to the states passing new death penalty laws, SCOTUS examined the new laws and found that their application did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Note that the Court did not declare that the text of either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments were invalid or no longer binding or written out of the document. The amendments themselves are just as much in force and effect as they ever were. The Court has no power to so invalidate.
Man, Bricker is gonna be in here one of these days and he is gonna chop off every one of your fingers. Yes, Marbury did establish the Court’s power of judicial review. That is not the same as saying that SCOTUS has the power to remove or invalidate the text of the Constitution.