- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The checks and balances in this case, is the selection process. It keeps dickweeds from getting posted to the Supreme Court and doing too much damage, before that person can be impeached.
Many.
1) The President nominates the Justices - the President decides who shall be considered for the appointment of Justices
2) The Senate confirms the nominee - an appointment is made only with the approval of a chamber of Congress.
3) It is up to the President to enforce Supreme Court rulings - if the President does not approve of a Supreme Court ruling, he can choose not to enforce [done somewhat (in)famously by Andrew Jackson regarding the Native Americans suing against the government relocating them to reservations)
4) An amendment can be proposed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, or be proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures; the amendment can then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the states via conventions - if the Supreme Court rules an act unconstitutional, Congress or the people can amendment the Constitution to allow it
So there are many ways in which to check the power of the Supreme Court.
Well as far as I can tell the only thing that my suggestions would change is that Congress no longer confirm. I don't see that as a bad thing as they have proven that they do so in a biased manner. We need people that can do it in a non-biased manner. Just for clairification the biased manner in this case is putting the judge on the bench to try and further Congresses goals. Instead of putting them on the bench to preserve the American peoples rights.