American Federal Court System

[sinton66]

I recently read an article in the American Legion magazine which I found pretty interesting. The author is a Harvard Law graduate and wrote this article to promote his idea how to fix our system. The entire problem with our federal court system is that it has no checks and balances built into it. Federal Judges are appointed for life, and even the president who nominates them for the bench can't fire them. It takes an impeachment procedure to remove them.

The court system has ursurped power from the other two branches for years and nobody questions it. They have become recognized as the "final authority" on all matters. That isn't on constitutional authority, it is an assumed power. What it has resulted in is a court system that makes laws instead of just applying them. It has also started to make domestic and foreign policy. They are allowing foreign rulings to dictate American policy.
Lower federal courts are taking over schools and dictating what must happen. (William Wayne Justice and the State of Texas Educational System). This branch of government was never intended to do that. That is the job of the legislature and the executive branches.

This author's idea is to enact a constitutional ammendment to allow for congressional override. The constitution allows congress to override a presidential veto by 3/4 majority vote. They should be able to do the same to a Supreme Court decision if that decision is NOT what the people of the US want or is not in their best interest. He suggests a 2/3 majority vote to override a court decision.

In my humble opinion, I think this is an excellent idea. Our federal court system needs to be put in its place and quickly. At present, the courts are running wild and unchecked. It's way past time for the REAL power in the US to step up and say enough is enough.

Feel free to comment, this is NOT a political discussion as we define it. Federal Judges are appointed, not elected.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by sinton66
I recently read an article in the American Legion magazine which I found pretty interesting. The author is a Harvard Law graduate and wrote this article to promote his idea how to fix our system. The entire problem with our federal court system is that it has no checks and balances built into it. Federal Judges are appointed for life, and even the president who nominates them for the bench can't fire them. It takes an impeachment procedure to remove them.

The court system has ursurped power from the other two branches for years and nobody questions it. They have become recognized as the "final authority" on all matters. That isn't on constitutional authority, it is an assumed power. What it has resulted in is a court system that makes laws instead of just applying them. It has also started to make domestic and foreign policy. They are allowing foreign rulings to dictate American policy.
Lower federal courts are taking over schools and dictating what must happen. (William Wayne Justice and the State of Texas Educational System). This branch of government was never intended to do that. That is the job of the legislature and the executive branches.

This author's idea is to enact a constitutional ammendment to allow for congressional override. The constitution allows congress to override a presidential veto by 3/4 majority vote. They should be able to do the same to a Supreme Court decision if that decision is NOT what the people of the US want or is not in their best interest. He suggests a 2/3 majority vote to override a court decision.

In my humble opinion, I think this is an excellent idea. Our federal court system needs to be put in its place and quickly. At present, the courts are running wild and unchecked. It's way past time for the REAL power in the US to step up and say enough is enough.

Feel free to comment, this is NOT a political discussion as we define it. Federal Judges are appointed, not elected.



Not questioning anything at all, but the last time we were talking about judges in the Terri Schiavo case we all got in trouble.

[sinton66]

The Terri Schiavo case involved lots of religious differences. This case is based on constitutional law and who really is in charge of this country and its future. The Schiavo case was also basically a state court case, this is Federal. There is a big difference.

So, as I said, feel free to comment, but please stick to the central issue.

[mwynn05]

You say it isn't political which it isnt but at the same time it's very political...and your jusyt asking for it to start with this post

[marlin fan]

Originally posted by mwynn05
You say it isn't political which it isnt but at the same time it's very political...and your jusyt asking for it to start with this post yep once gary see's this thread its gonna hit the fan!!!

[Phil C]

I agree with you 66. I have always felt like there should be a term limitation on them too like 10 to 12 years. Of course the appointments were made for life to keep the politics out but that time limit seems reasonable to me.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by mwynn05
You say it isn't political which it isnt but at the same time it's very political...and your jusyt asking for it to start with this post

This is a general discussion of constitutional law and where the powers are granted by it. It does not and will not be allowed to involve any discussion based solely on conservative or liberal politics. There are NO elected officials or candidates for office in this discussion. The Fedreal Court system and The Constitution transcend partisan politics. There shouldn't be a problem as long as everyone sticks to the central issue.

[mwynn05]

Originally posted by sinton66
This is a general discussion of constitutional law and where the powers are granted by it. It does not and will not be allowed to involve any discussion based solely on conservative or liberal politics. There are NO elected officials or candidates for office in this discussion. The Fedreal Court system and The Constitution transcend partisan politics. There shouldn't be a problem as long as everyone sticks to the central issue. like everyone is going to do that come on you know better and it's not like we dont elect the people who appoint the judges

[jason]

Originally posted by sinton66
The court system has ursurped power from the other two branches for years and nobody questions it.
???


Originally posted by sinton66
They have become recognized as the "final authority" on all matters. That isn't on constitutional authority, it is an assumed power.
no comment


Originally posted by sinton66
What it has resulted in is a court system that makes laws instead of just applying them.

no comment


Originally posted by sinton66
In my humble opinion, I think this is an excellent idea. Our federal court system needs to be put in its place and quickly. At present, the courts are running wild and unchecked. It's way past time for the REAL power in the US to step up and say enough is enough.

i disagree...whatever party holds the presidency will ultimately have control because they wont want to go against what the president wants to do....the REAL power let its voice be heard when President Bush was re-elected...

[BHBrave08]

I think that jason is right mostly. But you talk about the powers that the Supreme Court has assumed without the constitution giving them to the Justices. But the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to assume them. I do believe that they as well as other judges over step there bounds sometimes, and something needs to be done about it. But i am not sure what.

[sinton66]

i disagree...whatever party holds the presidency will ultimately have control because they wont want to go against what the president wants to do....the REAL power let its voice be heard when President Bush was re-elected...

You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter which party is in the white house because there are no checks and balances for the court system already on the bench. As far as them doing the president's bidding, that's incorrect as demonstrated by their sticking their noses into American foreign policy which is historically a power belonging solely to the executive branch.

[Owen B]

There are plenty of checks and balances.

[espn1]

There needs to be term limits across the Board. The most corrupt area in our lives is the Federal reserve.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Owen B
There are plenty of checks and balances. Where's the checks and balances for the U.S. Supreme Court?

[rockdale80]

I think there should be a check, but 3/4 just like to override a presidential veto.

[slpybear the bullfan]

I think if the Court system played football, then they could have a least three classifcations... (one for each level of federal courts).

And think of the team names!!!

Judicial Junkyard Dogs

Black-robed fighting Warriors

Big Bench Bulldogs

[Owen B]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Where's the checks and balances for the U.S. Supreme Court? The appointment process itself, impeachment, congressional law-making and funding powers, administrative law enforcement powers, and constitutional amendments are among them.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Owen B
The appointment process itself, impeachment, congressional law-making and funding powers, administrative law enforcement powers, and constitutional amendments are among them.

Again, I point out that NONE of these except impeachment apply to people already ON thre bench. Other than impeachment(which is literally an act of Congress) there are no checks and balances on any Federal judge AFTER he takes his lifetime appointment to the bench.

I do, however, agree that 2/3 may not be quite enough. I also would be more inclined to favor the 3/4 margin. That said, a 2/3 majority would be EXTREMELY difficult to pull off by itself.

[Owen B]

Originally posted by sinton66
Again, I point out that NONE of these except impeachment apply to people already ON thre bench.
I disagree. Except for the first, they all do. Impeachment is the only one that can apply to a specific person, but the rest can and do limit the powers of courts.

I wouldn't support the override amendment you propose, even with the higher margin. I might support a mandatory retirement age, a term limit of some sort, or a provision for removing judges for physical or mental incompetence due to age or illness. I'd almost certainly support the latter in principle, but I'd want to carefully consider the specifics of any such proposal.

[sinton66]

First and foremost, it's not my proposal, just one I happen to think is a good idea, or at least it's a good starting point.

Second, constitutional ammendments are meaningless if we have a court that can declare that particular ammendment unconstitutional. If indeed they are the final authority, what is there to keep them from doing so?

Third, congressional approval of appointments happen before the lifetime appointment, not after. Therefore have no impact on already sitting judges.

Fourth, the law enforcement practices of the executive branch are being challenged in the courts on a daily basis with rulings that this and that are discriminatory, unconstitutional, and such.

With respect to all of this, the only real check and balance AFTER the fact is the impeachment procedure which requires some sort of criminal or moral violation to occur.

[Owen B]

"First and foremost, it's not my proposal, just one I happen to think is a good idea, or at least it's a good starting point."

It's not originally your proposal, but you proposed it to this forum, as an idea to consider. That's all I meant.

"Second, constitutional ammendments are meaningless if we have a court that can declare that particular ammendment unconstitutional. If indeed they are the final authority, what is there to keep them from doing so?"

Courts can't declare constitutional amendments unconstitutional. Never could. And courts are not the final authority. The people are.

"Third, congressional approval of appointments happen before the lifetime appointment, not after. Therefore have no impact on already sitting judges."

Agreed previously, but approval of judicial appointments is not the primary way in which Congress impacts the courts. Congress writes the laws, and any changes in the laws Congress makes, so long as they are not superceded by the constitution, are binding on the courts. Congress created every federal court except the Supreme Court, and can create new ones, abolish existing ones except for the Supreme Court, and even modify the Supreme Court in some ways. Congress also sets many of the standards of evidence and procedure used by the judicial system.

"Fourth, the law enforcement practices of the executive branch are being challenged in the courts on a daily basis with rulings that this and that are discriminatory, unconstitutional, and such."

You miss my point. A court decree means little unless it is obeyed. The executive branch is the primary enforcer. If the executive branch were to refuse to enforce (or obey) a court decree, the court could do almost nothing about it. Congress could, but if both the executive and legislative branches were to refuse to abide by a judicial decision, it would be effectively rendered null and void, unless the people were to revolt against the exective and legislative branches, in support of the judiciary.

"With respect to all of this, the only real check and balance AFTER the fact is the impeachment procedure which requires some sort of criminal or moral violation to occur."

Again, I disagree. I listed three others that apply to all courts: executive powers, legislative powers, and the power of the States to amend the constitution. There are also checks and balances in place within the judicial branch itself. You may think that they are insufficient, but they do exist.