# US Lawyer dopers; US Supreme Court Justices **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2008, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-lawyer-dopers-us-supreme-court-justices/469336 "2008-10-24T12:39:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-lawyer-dopers-us-supreme-court-justices/469336/41 "2008-10-25T17:00:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > In fact, the notion of a neutral civil service is much more limited in the United States than it is in Britain. Nitpick: the civil service is partisan at the top, but everyone not at the highest couple of levels is a bureaucrat, not a political appointee. At least, that’s the way it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-lawyer-dopers-us-supreme-court-justices/469336/42 "2008-10-25T21:00:52Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > As I said, creating a right of privacy, which did not exist, is more than just “interpretation”. At least according to the English legal system. Again, cultural differences. Doesn’t the constitution say something specifically about the enumeration of certain rights not being construed to mean that others don’t exist? If stated right A only makes sense if implied right B exists, and implied right B is applicable to a case, should the judges ignore that? I would be hardpressed not to consider that application anyway, but given that the constitution specifically has language warning not to ignore rights of the people that aren’t specifically addressed in the bill of rights, doubly so. In any case, sure, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law, but the law is not always cut and dried and so there’s more interpretation up for grabs. Especially if you consider that the law was either vague enough or controversial enough to get all the way to the SC and have them agree to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-lawyer-dopers-us-supreme-court-justices/469336/43 "2008-10-26T00:59:41Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > AK, I’m left wondering exactly what the problem is you’re trying to solve with your proposed solutions. Is it that the Supreme Court is political in nature? Our system is set up to have three co-equal political branches that are supposed to assert their own authority and, as a result, limit the exercise of power by the other branches. It’s the whole point. > > In Britain, the sole political body is the Parliament (headed by the prime minister and cabinet). That’s not the intent of our government. We don’t want the Congress or the president to have superior political authority over the judiciary. We want all three branches struggling to prevent each other from exceeding their authority. > > If you cripple the judiciary, then you’re tampering with the basic structure of the system. As it is, the last eight years have shown us how dangerous it is for the judiciary and the legislature to cede too much power to the executive. At least now there is still a chance for the other branches to try to seize back that power and reinstate limits on executive power. I think the last thing we need is to weaken one of the three branches by removing its freedom to exercise its political power. I am not offering any solutions. I am a foreigner from a similar legal system who is interested in the workings and wants to know more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-lawyer-dopers-us-supreme-court-justices/469336.md?page=2)