Although I do find it strange that there is no check on the judiciary.
Like, it’s supposed to be checks and balances, but what stops the judges from passing an unjust law?
Judges have a lifetime appointment in the Supreme Court. The only way they can be removed is by all of Congress coming together and choosing to impeach one of them, and that takes years when Congress is actually functioning.
…but what stops the judges from passing an unjust law?..
Well, ostensibly it’s congress that passes the laws and the courts may say how they are interpreted or implemented.
If the courts are interpreting the laws against what the authors of the law intended, it is up to congress to write laws that are better and pass constitutional muster without question…
We’re at the point we are because of poorly written laws that have led to loopholes and poor implementation being taken advantage of.
They have no authority to enforce any law. And they have no legislative powers.
Rulings have been ignored multiple times because the judiciary just has no means to enforce what the executive branch refuses to enforce
technically the check for judicial was supposed to be a mix between it being a life position and the legislative branches impeachment/revocal process. The court was supposed to be an impartial non-political, but it’s been slowly slipping into a very heavily politically motivated group.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 days ago
Judges don’t pass law at all. At must jurisprudence in the absence of law. Laws are the realm of the legislative.
The legislative could pass a law limiting supreme court term to 16 years tomorrow of they wanted.
radix@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Judges don’t pass laws, but they can create plenty of loopholes out of thin air. Qualified Immunity doesn’t exist in any statute (to my knowledge), but it is a de facto legal standard, for one example.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 days ago
Because there isn’t a law about it. What we need is a legislative that actually does their fucking job.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There is a law about it.
web.archive.org/…/qualified-immunity-supreme-cour…
And if the 1982 SCOTUS had been given the full text of the relevant law, then QI would have never happened. It is expressly illegal according to the full text of Section 1983
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Well… yes and no. Judges can and do blatantly ignore law and impartiality. To wit: Judge Cannon, who successfully completely stymied any meaningful prosecution of orangeboi, in a series of legal decisions that were overtly partisan and biased.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 days ago
web.archive.org/…/qualified-immunity-supreme-cour…
And if the 1982 SCOTUS had been given the full text of the relevant law, then QI would have never happened. It is expressly illegal according to the full text of Section 1983
bizarroland@lemmy.world 5 days ago
They could rule that law unconstitutional and void it, though.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 days ago
I was about to say that they’d have to base that on the constitution but… gestures broadly… Yeah, the current court would have to be dismantled first.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 days ago
web.archive.org/…/qualified-immunity-supreme-cour…
And if the 1982 SCOTUS had been given the full text of the relevant law, then QI would have never happened. It is expressly illegal according to the full text of Section 1983