Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?
|
I am reduced to this: Oh. My. God.
How many examples do you want of the judiciary exercising their supremacy over the legislative and executive branches? Go read
Marbury v. Madison. The Marshall Court basically stated that they could overturn laws that were unconstitutional. Would you like a list of which federal laws they overturned? As for the judicial branch stopping a runaway executive? That's not their responsibility. It's the Senate's. They impeach all folks in the Executive branch that are impeachable.
Will, every single Federal judge in the United States is selected for his views. Every. Single. One. Not necessarily his political views, but definitely for his judicial views. And every single one is reviewed by the Senate and approved or rejected. Every. Single. One.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.
|
Exactly how to you propose selecting "independent" judges? By lottery? Election? It seems to me that you're proposing a very radical change that you haven't thought through.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Can you imagine the president and SCOTUS choosing senate members?
|
Can you imagine the amendment necessary to allow them to do so? Oh, wait. Can you imagine birds flying out of my ass?