Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheCoelacanth | Hacker News Reader

That's certainly how SCOTUS interpreted it, and a 200 year tradition of interpreting it that has made it so that most people will now interpret it that way, but "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" hardly makes it clear that they get to decide the powers of the other two branches.

View on HN

Devils advocate, if not the Supreme Court, then whom?

Congress makes a law. The Executive branch executes the law. The Supreme Court interprets whether that law was broken during its execution.

If you take out that third leg, is the assumption that Congress must revoke the law to provide a check/balance? What if the intent was good, but the execution was bad?

Maybe they thought States would remain strong and step up to the plate?

There is the 9th and 10th amendment that do not seem to get much coverage in court rulings.

Can you elaborate on your point?

The 9th amendment is made to ensure the federal govt doesn't have sway over unspecified rights; is your thought that the States would enumerate those rights separately?

In any event, I suspect you're right. It seems like the the balance of power may be more biased than the founders intended.

My thought on the 9th would be that it would not limit our rights in any way and by that same thought not allow an all powerful state or federal government from encroaching on any right we may have not enumerated.

The balance of power has definitely changed since the countries founding. If you read about the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, you don't see states doing this anymore.

This is parliamentary supremacy. The third leg would be people replacing the legislature.

That would put a check on those who write the laws, but it still leaves no check against the poor execution of those laws.

Sounds like a good system until the Federalist Society and a generation of Christian judicial activism showed up and gave us a handful of partisan judges.

I've asked elsewhere, but is there valid evidence (like statistical evidence within a reasonable level of uncertainty) that the courts are not apolitical? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, it's just that I've never seen it presented as anything other than anecdotal.

If so, what's the solution? Term-limits on judges? But then doesn't that ensure they will be even more politicized?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com