There is no such thing has SETTLED LAW

[DoYouEverWonder]

not for a Supreme Court Justice.

Congress is the only body that can create law. The Judiciary, enforces the law and interprets the law based on precedent.

Except for the Supreme Court which not only interprets law but does have the power to create law. This is what happened with George Bush was selected President in 2000. Since the election laws were inadequate, the Supreme Court created new law, that was why they wrote in an escape clause that this particular decision did not set precedent.

The danger now is that we are about to install a radical right wing fundie who will have no problem with creating law once he in Chief Justice. This is what is at stake here folks and don't let John Roberts try to convince you otherwise.

[Drifter]

1. Can Justices be impeached ?

Or removed by a sane Democratic President ?

Curious
Drifter

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. They can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate

But that is very unlikely to happen.

The President has no power over this.

[msrbly]

4. Justices can be impeached

There are four ways a justice can leave the Court: they can retire, resign, be impeached, or die. Some justices can be lured off the bench by offers of ambassadorships, and only one justice (Samuel Chase in 1803) has ever been impeached (and later acquitted in 1805). Efforts were made to impeach William Douglas in 1969 for his strong liberalism and Abe Fortas the same year for conflict of interest, but both attempts failed. Impeachment of a justice is the same as for any other federal official - for treason, bribery, or any high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, Section 4).

[msrbly]

2. Not technically correct . . .

The Legislative branch creates the law. The Executive Branch (of which our "fearless leader" is a member) enforces the law and the Judicial Branch (which includes but is not limited to the Supreme Court) interprets the law.

In selecting Bush as president in 2000 the Supreme Court did not make law, it simply interpreted law (rather poorly in my opinion) and ensured that its interpretation was not precedent for future similar cases. Roberts will have no power to create law. That isn't to say that there isn't a danger in how he will or does interpret the law.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Yes the Supreme Court does have the power to create law

The following quote is from a Curriculum Guide regarding the Role of Government that was published by Newsweek.


The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court create law for the land. The Supreme Court rules on about 75 cases each year, cases it chooses from those that come to it on appeal.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zSI2XNG88RoJ:school.newsweek.com/online_activities/pdfs/govt_sampler_fall05.pdf+%22supreme+Court+create+law%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[msrbly]

6. Sorry, Newsweek is a nice source but I'm not buying it

Five years in undergrad for a BS in Legal Studies, 3 years in Law School for JD and 3 years practicing appellate law tell me otherwise. No appellate court can make law.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I thought I was clear that only the Supreme Court

can create law. That is the big difference between them and everyone else. I said nothing about any lower court having this power.

[msrbly]

8. The US Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the country

The Supreme Court is an appellate court and no appellate court in the country can make law.

[shockingelk]

9. There's many types of law

Lower courts must look to how higher courts have applied legislative law (statues) in precedents (case law).

Here are two articles that may clear things up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis