The Justices are devoted to achiev¬ing what they see as the best legal policies, and they deviate from their most preferred policies only for strategic reasons. They have the power to put a void on anything people in the government do, this also includes the president. Many of them came from upper class and graduated from pretty prestigious schools. They also have the power to accept an appeal and make it into a case. The Supreme Court takes part in judicial review which is examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution.
‘Politicians in robes’. How far do you agree that the US Supreme Court has too much power for an unelected body? The US Supreme Court is an institution that was set up by the US Constitution and is the 3rd branch of Government. Their job is to uphold the rights of individuals and to keep a check on the other two branches. It has been argued that the Supreme Court has too much power because they are unelected and have extended not only the rights of individuals and groups but of the Government and their jurisdiction.
Instead the president has to follow the wishes of the Congress and how they want that law to be regulated. Thus proving yet another way Congress can exceed the powers of another branch. Congress also have the power to alter a proposed bill and changing it to better suit their particular views and how they want the law to be constructed. Yes like stated before the president can do this but the judicial system can not. The only thing the judicial system can do is uphold that law the way congress intended but they don’t have the power to change it.
The reason it is the most democratic is because the judicial branch has to be unbiased. The unbiased will protect the majority and minority. Although the people do not elect members to the judicial branch, the people’s interests are in mind when making a decision. Both the majority and minority have an equal statute is in the judicial branch. The judicial branch has a non-partisan point of view to the Law.
2. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3.
(GCU, 2012) Responsibilities are specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, requires trial by jury, defines treason and its enforcement, and states that the Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between states, ambassadors, and dignitaries from other countries. The three branches of government are supposed to work in harmony with each other while guarding the limited power each branch was granted by the people. The intention of these three branches is to keep the balance of power in the favor of the people. They were put into place so that not one branch has too much power and be able to run the Congress in deciding which laws are passed and are not passed. By spreading the power into three different branches, this ensures that the balance of power is equal and not all in person or a team of people’s
The US Supreme Court is also seen as a political institution rather than a judicial one because of the power of the court through judicial review. Judicial review is a review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act. This gives the Supreme Court the power
In Boumediene versus Bush case, the court voted that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, because Cuba’s base is technically American territory. Chief Justice Roberts is against the majority vote. His thoughts are that the court is “overreaching” and fears that the decision made by non-political and non-accountable judges might strain the control of the nations on foreign policies. (Greenhouse, L., 2008) The role of the President as commander in chief is to put in force “laws passed by the Congress”. (Levin-Waldman, O.M., 2012, p.48) He also can do whatever he feels is needed to “protect and defend the Constitution”.
Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.
Federalist vs. anti- federalist Federalists liked having a strong central government--the kind with the president and congress and the Supreme Court. Anti-Federalists, however, wanted strong state governments--they wanted more laws to be made by state governors and state senators. 8. A federal system of government Federalists favored a strong central government as opposed to the anti federalists who favored a weaker central government. Federalists wished the US constitution to pass as it was before the amendments and the bill of rights.