Do you think the Supreme court has too much power?

Question

Do you think the Supreme court has too much power?

Answer 1

No I do not. The Supreme Court must have a level of independence. The reason is so they will be above political pressure to vote a particular way. I do however believe that the Supreme Court is too ideological and is often guilty of creating legislation by judicial fiat rather than doing the duty they are charged with. This duty is strict interpretation of Constitution without regard for personal political ideology.

Answer 2

No - cases which end up in the Supreme Court have gone through a veritable maze of procedure, process and various and sundry layers of red tape before it ever hits the highest court in the land.

It may seem as if the Supreme Court "has too much power" to citizens who have become accustomed to the Excutive Branch making all decisions at every level for the past eight years, completely and totally ignoring legislation which has gone through the standard, accepted path of American law.

TRANSLATION: bush issuing over 750 signing statements. Ignoring REAL legislation by saying, "Well, that may be what the LAW says, but *I* will interpret this piece of legislation however I see fit."

Yes.....

For a citizenry who has gotten slack and blase about the American President turning into a dictator, YES, it may seem as though the Supreme Court "has too much power."

Answer 3

Supreme courts need that power ... they form the checks and balances thing along with the Legislature...

Answer 4

No, but I think that the Executive Branch has too much power.  Now...all in the name of terrorism.

Answer 5

My intitial reaction was to say, "No" because I was thinking about the Fuhrer Bush, and the Supreme Court providing some minimal balance.

But then I read synszn's response, and of course, when it came to the Supreme Court HANDING THE PRESIDENCY to bush in 2000, the answer is a booming, "YES, the Supreme Court abused its power. Wielded power which it DID NOT LEGITIMATELY HAVE."

No where, no how, no way was the Supreme Court EVER given the authority to hand the Presidency to someone else.

The Constitution is NOT ambiguous about the State's rights when it comes to elections - that responsibility ultimately belonged in the hands of FLORIDA to decide the outcome of those votes -- NOT the Supreme Court.

Ergo, the so-called "election" ended up being a FRAUD.

And bush has NEVER been the real President.

Well...... if we believe in the law of the Constitution, that is.

Answer 6

When they begin voting by any other means than the rule of law, yes.

Answer 7

Yes, they legislate by diktat.

Answer 8

no.  they have at times abused the power they have, but that's it.  they can't get too far with 435 congresspeople breathing down their necks.

Answer 9

They did not have the power under the US Constitution that they say they do now.

They were never given the right to interfere with a states electoral process. That decision needs to be overturned. It means that any dictator (or wannabe) that is willing to threaten the family or loved ones of members of the Supreme Court can get a ruling in their favor on something they do not have the power to give.

I do not think that is what happened but it could.

They knew it was an illegal ruling when they said it was a one time thing and could not be used as a precedent. Illogical. It just means another Supreme Court can rule again on a one time thing and ....the Rule of Law went down the toilet in 2000.

I would like to see a criminal case where the lawyer said "if we get the facts" (ie count the votes in Bush's case)" my client will be harmed!"

Answer 10

No, absolutely not. They are the ONLY thing preventing a tyranical government in case any body doesn't know what the constitution is about.

Why are conservatives alwasy so happy to dance on the Constitution when it suits their purposes (while accusing Democrats and others of being against it?).

Answer 11

I think they have been guilty of creating legislation in the past.

Answer 12

No, not at all.  The whole idea is that we have checks and balances, and they need to do their job.