I don't think the Supreme Court requires Senate approval for overturning cases.
So the Supreme Court can opberturn precedent left right and centre without approval and the judical psositions get chosen by the President and Senate of the day?
The three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) are regulated by a system of checks and balances -- each branch has things only it can do, and ways to check the power of the other branches when they step out of line. The President appoints federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Confirmation of an appointment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate, which is something the Republicans do *not* have (I don't know if *any* party has had a 2/3 majority in US history, which is kind of the point -- the framers wanted a big majority so that presidents wouldn't have unfettered power in selecting the judiciary).
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, the reasoning being that this will create an independent judiciary and enable them to interpret the law without having to worry about playing politics. The Supreme Court generally follows its own precedent and only rarely overturns its own landmark cases.
However, if the Court interprets the law in a way in which Congress (or the people or whomever) thinks is wrong, then Congress has the power to pass new laws (or Constitutional amendments, which is an entirely different and more complicated animal) that essentially nullify the Court's ruling -- for example, if the Court decided that Law X meant that no one could sell pineapple on Sundays, Congress could pass Law Y specifically stating that Sunday pineapple sales were okay.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-04 03:26 pm (UTC)So the Supreme Court can opberturn precedent left right and centre without approval and the judical psositions get chosen by the President and Senate of the day?
I'm defintely worried now.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-04 05:58 pm (UTC)The three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) are regulated by a system of checks and balances -- each branch has things only it can do, and ways to check the power of the other branches when they step out of line. The President appoints federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Confirmation of an appointment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate, which is something the Republicans do *not* have (I don't know if *any* party has had a 2/3 majority in US history, which is kind of the point -- the framers wanted a big majority so that presidents wouldn't have unfettered power in selecting the judiciary).
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, the reasoning being that this will create an independent judiciary and enable them to interpret the law without having to worry about playing politics. The Supreme Court generally follows its own precedent and only rarely overturns its own landmark cases.
However, if the Court interprets the law in a way in which Congress (or the people or whomever) thinks is wrong, then Congress has the power to pass new laws (or Constitutional amendments, which is an entirely different and more complicated animal) that essentially nullify the Court's ruling -- for example, if the Court decided that Law X meant that no one could sell pineapple on Sundays, Congress could pass Law Y specifically stating that Sunday pineapple sales were okay.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-04 07:33 pm (UTC)I await further proceedings with baited breath! :)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-05 01:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-04 06:27 pm (UTC)I think there'd have to be another SC resignation/death (in addition to O'Connor and Rehnquist, I mean) in order for Roe v. Wade to get overturned.
But, yeah. It's been working for over two hundred years now so there you go. *shrug*