Where are the checks and balances for the Supreme Court?

[Hugabear]

The President can veto legislation from Congress, and Congress can override a veto. Therefore, there is a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branch. But where is there a check against the SCOTUS?

I know that technically, there are checks. The President has to appoint the justices, and Congress must confirm them. And there can be amendments added to the Constitution, which would bypass the Supreme Court altogether. On the first "check", that only works before they're on the bench. Once they're on the bench, there doesn't seem to be anything that Congress or the President can do. And as for passing a constitutional amendment - that does seem a tad bit unrealistic, considering just how hard it is to get one of those things passed.

So basically, a heavily conservative Supreme Court could pass a ruling like they did today, saying that corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as individuals, and there's not jack shit that can be done?

[hobbit709]

1. The slow unlikely processes of impeachment or amendment

[flamingdem]

4. Why unlikely? nt

[hobbit709]

14. How many amendments are there?

and how many times has a sitting judge been impeached. It can happen but the chances are slim and they have to have some kind of reason, not just because people don't like a decision

But impeachment and death are the only ways to remove a justice.

[Hosnon]

20. We could dilute the power of these five Justices by packing the Court.

However, I'm not sure that is the wisest solution, and based on what I've seen from Obama so far, that would be waaay too aggressive for him.

[Codeine]

8. Impeachment really doesn't apply here.

They've committed neither High Crime nor Misdemeanor. Just bad judicial activism.

[ThomWV]

2. The Constitution can be Amended - that's the Congressional check on the Judiciary.

[d_b]

3. so nothing

nice

[Ganja Ninja]

17. Perhaps they ought to amend it to put term limits on SC judges. n/t

[TxRider]

5. With the government

Congress needs to pass new laws, or amend the constitution.

SCOTUS just interprets the law and constitution, Congress writes them.

[atmame77]

6. Scalia is a chain smoker

To My understanding Scalia is a chain smoker, Roberts is a epileptic,
Thomas is a idiot, Kennedy is constipated, Alito; Hmm. I bet he likes little boys.

Scalia is riddled with lung tumors.
Roberts can always fall and hit His head.

Doug

[anonymous171]

7. Plant child porn on them and impeach them for it. nt

[scarletwoman]

9. I'm all for trying voodoo dolls.

Other than that, it's deus ex machina. And that will probably involve a very long wait.

[kenny blankenship]

10. The limits of the American people's tolerance and submission

[Unvanguard]

11. SCOTUS is limited to enforcing constitutional provisions.

So their overall policy impact is far less than, say, that of Congress or the President.

[ManiacJoe]

12. SC budget is from Congress.

Pres nominates the judges.

[FreeJoe]

13. Keep in mind...

If it was easy to block court decisions, we might have integrated schools (Brown), Miranda rights, a guarantee of legal representation (Gideon), or the right to choose (Roe).

Honestly, I'm with the SC on this case. I'm a big first amendment supporter and the law never felt right to me. I'm with the ACLU on this one.

[crazyjoe]

15. what do you mean ACLU ? they support this decision?

I didn't hear anything about that

[Codeine]

16. They did indeed.

First Amendment absolutists.

[blondeatlast]

19. Without the ACLU, it likely would never have gotten to the SCOTUS. nt

[Hosnon]

18. The most effective check is the Court's inability to rule on issues of its choice.

The Supreme Court can't decide tomorrow to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage. A suit must be filed and work its way up through the federal court system. Then, 4 of the justices must vote to hear the case. They basically sit at the bottom of a giant Plinko game. Any justice with a personal agenda can only sit and wait for a case to land at the Court's feet (and then he or she must be in the majority and be selected by the CJ to author the opinion).

I don't think the other checks really limit the Court's power in any real, day-to-day way. But the structural limitation placed on the Court is more than enough, in my opinion. If the Court fails in a big way, then we can amend the constitution to address the ruling (e.g., the XVIth Amendment), increase the number of justices, or impeach the sitting members.

To me, it's time for a constitutional amendment defining the rights of corporations.