It's fairly easy to look at Brown v. Board of Education and see that the Supreme Court can have a major role in shaping the nation for good.

It's a lot harder when you recall how Dred Scott ended up being one of the causes of hundreds of thousands of people dying in the Civil War by dissolving the Missouri Compromise.

The virtue of democracy is that it requires compromise. And this requirement leads to stability.

The doctrine Dahlia supports isn't just a matter of conservative vs. liberal - it's a matter of democracy vs. absolutism. Dahlia would see the major issues of our nation decided Politburo-style by a narrowly selected group who must first pass through a system that imparts a certain worldview. Doctors do not become Supreme Court justices. Day laborers do not become Supreme Court justices. Only lawers become Supreme Court justices.

And rule by lawyers is not the same as rule of law. In fact, it is directly contrary to rule of law. Lawyers function in society only because they are checked by other lawyers working in opposition - and this system fails when we exalt a judicial star chamber above democracy.

In Dahlia's vision, the Supreme Court is not really a Court so much as it is Supreme - the branch that commands the others, not a equal branch.

writ of certori can be presented as a legal document to the supreme court and by lay persons even doctors and common everyday people but the rules of the law must be kept.if the supreme court decides to ehar the caswe iw oudl advised all the best lawyers any lay person can fin sometimes the local legal aid can do this.if I lived in New Orleans Jefferson parish where the resideitns are being served legal local swarrants to move the fema trailers then i would appeal this with a writ of cerotori since this is federal and too important to go the long long route of appeal in the distrst then the federal level I cannot understand why they are doing this unless some collection local lawerys and politico types wants their lake front pprpeeerty and still nice homes. since the best louiane jfg cooff and tea and blue palte maganaise comes from this area and great cajun bea mixes and chil mixes do order this from the internet and support all of these since it si good and healty food for all usa people the bp off shore well rigs are back in operation in the grat mississippi and this makes the crooked opec oil princes mad amd maxx. www. luzianne.com.good nes is still around here in this year of our lord june 22, 2008 almost tax stimlus time thanks president Bush and everyone in dc and irs

Xando-

You just said everything that I wish I could have said, but much better than I would have said it. Well played.

What she's writing is that she wants to see the Supreme Court exist as it was intended, as a coequal branch of government with the executive and the legislative. It's not a question of rule by lawyers - it's a question of people who are expert in the law deciding the interpretation of it. And if a large number of Supreme Court justices seem reluctant to perform their actual job, it prevents the court from serving its function. Sometimes that function will lead to decisions that in hindsight do not serve the country well (e.g. Dred Scott), but these tend to be reversed over time (and to blame that decision for war deaths is a bit naive in assuming that the war was avoidable if the Missouri Compromise had held). And that is the point of the Constitution, really: the Supreme Court has no ability to serve as a commanding branch, because its decisions are always subject themselves to being overturned - not by future sessions of the court, but by constitutional amendment. Yes, that process is difficult; but if the court really were that insular, if it were to do something far beyond the scope of its authority that did not fit with the general will of the people, would it really be that difficult to muster the common agreement for an amendment? I think this fear of "judicial despotism" is really just rhetorical fig leaves for "I don't like the Supreme Court when it decides things with which I don't agree."

Yeah, true. But if McCain actually wins for some reason, we're screwed.

It's not a question of rule by lawyers - it's a question of people who are expert in the law deciding the interpretation of it.

Is there any limitation on how they interpret the Constitution, or simply because these 9 people are on the Supreme Court, they are free to change the interpretation of any law as they see fit? If there is a limitation - how would you define it in such terms that laymen would understand it, and be content with it? Cause you know, if people start thinkin' that judges behave like dictators, at some point they can get all together and hang those experts on the lamp-posts. There are plenty of examples of people who believed they knew exactly what the people wanted and needed - and who one day woked up and found out that their heads were surgically removed by a guiliotine.

gringo_911:

Is there any limitation on how they interpret the Constitution, or simply because these 9 people are on the Supreme Court, they are free to change the interpretation of any law as they see fit?

Good question. I would say that there is no limit, but if they were to interpret in such a way that was obviously against the intentions of the constitution, there would be a very interesting butting of heads between the branches and we would quickly see which of our "co-equal" branches really is supreme.

What if the supreme court decided that the president no longer gets to decide how to conduct foreign policy, even though this is against the constitution to make this decision? What if the president decided to simply ignore a supreme court ruling? What would be the consequences? What would be the consequences of the supreme court clearly violating the constitution in its "interpretation?" Would congress impeach the entire court? What if the court ruled the congressional impeachment unconstitutional?

I guess it's a good thing none of these things generally happen since it would pretty much result one of the branches becoming permanently impotent.

One can exert a check on the Supreme Court's decisions by crafting a constitutional amendment specifically to counter the court's decisions. For instance, you guys could propose an amendment banning abortion; but then you'd have to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 3/4 of the states to agree, and you know that won't happen, so you just sit in the corner and whine "judicial activism" instead. If something is so clearly wrong and unconstitutional, how could you not get an amending majority in favor of it?

Ultimately, the idea of the Supreme Court as a dictatorial junta is just borderline retarded for an entirely different reason. Normally, if one wants to be a dictator, one needs some sort of enforcement mechanism for said authority. Seeing as how the court lacks this, and that its decisions only carry as much weight as the enforcement efforts of the executive and legislative give them, the court ruling that the president couldn't conduct foreign policy would have roughly the same effect as me standing on a street corner shouting that I'm the king - both would be ignored.

Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson declining to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. If the court ruled in a way that reasonable people would agree that it contradicted the Constitution, any president could do the same. Presumably if a president got too much in the habit of this, or if he did it on rulings whose incorrectness was not widely agreed, Congress would do some impeaching. Ultimately, the court depends on the executive and legislative for there to be any enforcement of its decisions, so the idea of "judicial tyranny" is just stupid on its face. As I said, a fig leaf for simply wanting legal decisions always to go one's preferred way.

The comparison of the Supreme court to a second non elected branch of legislature is much more apt than comparison to a dictatorial body. The court, like the House and Senate, may order things be done, but the Executive has to do them. Perhaps we need a Supreme Supreme court to rule on whether the Supreme Court is abiding by the constitution.

A more harmful decision by an activist court, fully supported by right thinking people of the day was Plessy v. Ferguson, but you're right it took a mere 60 years of Jim Crow to begin to reverse the harm. A virtual twinkling of an eye. And of course that court only had to effectively vacate three constitutional amendments to reach their 7-1 decision.

So why should anyone be so silly as to worry about a Supreme Court aggressively using its power to achieve social good.

Ultimately, the idea of the Supreme Court as a dictatorial junta is just borderline retarded for an entirely different reason. Normally, if one wants to be a dictator, one needs some sort of enforcement mechanism for said authority. Seeing as how the court lacks this, and that its decisions only carry as much weight as the enforcement efforts of the executive and legislative give them, the court ruling that the president couldn't conduct foreign policy would have roughly the same effect as me standing on a street corner shouting that I'm the king - both would be ignored.

In other words, if, McCain is elected president and he says that moslem terrorists will be kept in Guatanamo irrespective of what the Supreme Court says - then we can't expect you to whine that McCain is tearing down the Constitution and committing the coup? Correct? Cause it would be completely in line with what you said here.

As long as Congress does not impeach the president - he can ignore any decision of the Supreme Court, and he still will be considered to be following the Constitution. Correct? Well, well, well, how many legal scholars agree with this interpretation of our laws?

Plessy v. Ferguson was an example of the court not taking an activist role, allowing a practice to stand because it carried the acceptance (even if contrary to the spirit of the Constitution) of the public majority. It stands as an example of judicial abdication of responsibility, yes; but it is directly opposite the cloistered group of highfalutin lawyers foisting their elite preferences on the public, as posited by the top-post. Plessy was the court acting, not as a ruling junta, but as merely bystanders to the unruly mob of public opinion.

Sawbones:

Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson declining to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. If the court ruled in a way that reasonable people would agree that it contradicted the Constitution, any president could do the same. Presumably if a president got too much in the habit of this, or if he did it on rulings whose incorrectness was not widely agreed, Congress would do some impeaching. Ultimately, the court depends on the executive and legislative for there to be any enforcement of its decisions, so the idea of "judicial tyranny" is just stupid on its face. As I said, a fig leaf for simply wanting legal decisions always to go one's preferred way.

First, I knew someone was going to bring up this case. How about now you find me a case where a law was declared unconstitutional by the court and the executive continued to enforce the law anyways, ignoring the court order. Give up? That's because none exist.

So in your view, the supreme court has absolutely no power whatsoever except in what the president decides to give them. I would have to say that your view is borderline retarted.