The Supreme Court

[The_Dark]

I'm just wondering... Do people really know what the Supreme Court is sopposed to do?

Do they make laws or just cast judgement on the laws?

[Wounds Within]

The Senate makes laws, the President approves them and the Supreme Court enforces laws based on the Constitution. Something like that.

To be honest you could have fooled me with all the shanigins that has been going on with the courts in Washinton as of late.

- Bloodied

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

The Senate makes laws, the President approves them and the Supreme Court enforces laws based on the Constitution. Something like that.

To be honest you could have fooled me with all the shanigins that has been going on with the courts in Washinton as of late.

- Bloodied

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The president etc. Executive Branch is supposed to enforce laws, the Supreme Court is supposed to determine if new laws (which have been challenged and brought before them) are "constitutional"... if they are contrary to the constitution, then they are declared unconstitutional and struck down. As of late, they have had to try and work with very little basis to determine the constitutionality of laws. Wheather or not you like their decisions, sometimes the basis for them is weak at best. I am all for Roe vs. Wade in spirit, but I think their basis for the decision was weak at best (right to privacy IIRC)

[Rayne]

Constitutional interpretation and application. :grin

[The_Dark]

Constitutional interpretation and application. :grin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope... In no way. There is not one place in the constitution that uses anyword even like that. They are supposed to decide if said Law is Constitutional... no interpretation... it either is or is not. That right there is the biggest misconception people have these days.

[Rayne]

Nope... In no way. There is not one place in the constitution that uses anyword even like that. They are supposed to decide if said Law is Constitutional... no interpretation... it either is or is not. That right there is the biggest misconception people have these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm...that is part of what I was taught. But mainly to sum it up I was taught "Constitutional interpretation and application" in law school.

They also interepret said constitutional law(s) as the higher court if appealed on the grounds of the law itself.

Were my professors incorrect?

[The_Dark]

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Article. III. Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[The_Dark]

JUDICIAL POWER

Characteristics and Attributes of Judicial Power

Judicial power is the power ''of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.'' 122 It is ''the right to determine actual controversies arising between diverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.'' 123 Although the terms ''judicial power'' and ''jurisdiction'' are frequently used interchangeably and jurisdiction is defined as the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit 124 or as the ''power to entertain the suit, consider the merits and render a binding decision thereon,'' 125 the cases and commentary support, indeed require, a distinction between the two concepts. Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to exercise judicial power in a specific case and is, of course, a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power, which is the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears and decides a case. 126

Judicial power confers on federal courts the power to decide a case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts. Supp.1 In this controversy, the Court had unexpectedly fixed on a shorter statute of limitations to file certain securities actions than that believed to be the time in many jurisdictions. Resultantly, several suits that had been filed later than the determined limitations had been dismissed and had become final because they were not appealed. Congress enacted a statute, which, while not changing the limitations period prospectively, retroactively extended the time for suits dismissed and provided for the reopening of the final judgments rendered in the dismissals of suits.

Holding the congressional act invalid, the Court held it impermissible for Congress to disturb a final judgment. ''Having achieved finality, . . . a judicial decision becomes the last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy, and Congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that very case was something other than what the courts said it was.'' Supp.2

Included within the general power to decide cases are the ancillary powers of courts to punish for contempts of their authority, 127 to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction when authorized by statute, 128 to make rules governing their process in the absence of statutory authorizations or prohibitions, 129 to order their own process so as to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice and to protect their own jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in custody of law, 130 to appoint masters in chancery, referees, auditors, and other investigators, 131 and to admit and disbar attorneys. 132

''Shall Be Vested.'' --The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is especially pertinent to the meaning of the words ''shall be vested'' in Sec. 1. Whereas all the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary, 133 the Constitution has not been read to mandate Congress to confer the entire jurisdiction it might. 134 Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it, 135 and, second, an act of Congress must have conferred it. 136 The fact that federal courts are of limited jurisdic tion means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct. 137

[Msterbeau]

A few definitions may or may not be helpful.

Judgement:

NOUN:

The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

The mental ability to perceive and distinguish relationships; discernment: Fatigue may affect a pilot's judgment of distances.

The capacity to form an opinion by distinguishing and evaluating: His judgment of fine music is impeccable.

The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense: She showed good judgment in saving her money. See Synonyms at reason.

An opinion or estimate formed after consideration or deliberation, especially a formal or authoritative decision: awaited the judgment of the umpire.

Law

A determination of a court of law; a judicial decision.

A court act creating or affirming an obligation, such as a debt.

A writ in witness of such an act.

An assertion of something believed.

Interpret:

VERB:

To explain the meaning of: interpreted the ambassador's remarks. See Synonyms at explain.

To conceive the significance of; construe: interpreted his smile to be an agreement; interpreted the open door as an invitation.

To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.

To translate orally.

VERB:

To offer an explanation.

To serve as an interpreter for speakers of different languages.

[The_Dark]

Very helpfull. The definitions of the words show that Interpreting and Judging are not the same thing.

[Msterbeau]

True...

Let's try a simple case though.

The law is "Thou shall not kill".

I kill someone in self defence and all evidence clearly proves this.. What is your judgement?

[The_Dark]

Well, first off... Last I checked that wasn't a law. Thats one of God's comandments from the Bible. At this point, it's up to the Prosecuter to determine which law or laws you may have broken. He would take his case to a Grand Jury who would decide if the killing was justifiable. If not, He then takes you to court and trys to prove that you broke said laws. In a case of self defense you would be charged, most likely, with Man slaughter of some degree. The prosocuter would then make his case... your defense lawyer would present your defense. Then a Jury would make the decision as to guilt or innocence. The Judge would watch over it all and make sure the Laws of the Land were followed during the process. It's all rather straight forward.

[Msterbeau]

I know it's not a law... I used it because like some laws, it's either vague or overly broad in scope. Forget all the other procedural stuff you mentioned... not that they aren't relevant or important in reality... this is in front of you as a Supreme Court Judge. Do you find me guilty? Do you you find the law unconstitutional? Is there some other judgement you might render? Why?

My point in all this is that even though interpreting is not explicitly spelled out in the documents you quote... I believe it is (In many, but certainly not all cases) a part of the judicial process at the Supreme Court level. In the case I posited, if there were no interpretation of the Constitution relative to my case, I would would be tossed into jail or sentenced to death because I broke the letter of the law. But, by interpreting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (as an example) a judge could clearly infer that I had a right to defend myself with deadly force... and thus strike down the law as unconstitutional. It's a fine line... certainly not without it's dangers.. but if interpretation is not allowed in the process, I see other dangers that would preesent themselves. For instance, how to is the Constitution to be applied to situations that the framers never considered? Something like genetic modification/cloning...

In the definition of "judgement", it talks about "forming an opinion after consideration or deliberation" and "distinguishing and evaluating". Interpreting could certainly be part of those processes, correct?

[Rayne]

True...

Let's try a simple case though.

The law is "Thou shall not kill".

I kill someone in self defence and all evidence clearly proves this..  What is your judgement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off -- that is not a law. The laws are defined as murder, (all degrees) attempted murder (all degrees), manslaughter (pre-meditated or meditated) and the like.

Second, after being charged, your defense attorney would have to present the evidence to a judge and jury. I'm assuming with such a high charge there is a jury trial.

Then it would be the jury's decision from there. The jury would then decide your guilt or innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty.

(Criminal law was not my focus)

[Msterbeau]

First off -- that is not a law. The laws are defined as murder, (all degrees) attempted murder (all degrees), manslaughter (pre-meditated or meditated) and the like.

Second, after being charged, your defense attorney would have to present the evidence to a judge and jury. I'm assuming with such a high charge there is a jury trial.

Then it would be the jury's decision from there. The jury would then decide your guilt or innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty.

(Criminal law was not my focus)

Buncha literalists!! *rolls eyes*

[The_Dark]

Well, Thou Shalt Not Kill, is not something that would come before the Courts. It's not a Law. You gave a bad example and we put it into the closest reality would could. It doesn't matter how vague it is... it's not a law and has no point in this discussion.

In cases not covered by the Constitution... Dude.. everything is covered by the Constitution in that if it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it falls under States Rights, as spelled out in the Constitution. The laws of the state where you committed the crime would be applied. It would only come before the Supreme court if someone claimed those Laws were unconstitutional.

Thats be problem with Judges making Law from the Bench.... Thats not thier Job. Judges are sopposed to Judge if something is or is not legal. If there is no law to cover it... it's not thier job to make a law to cover it. Congress makes the laws...

[Rayne]

Buncha literalists!!  *rolls eyes*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, you asked!

[Rayne]

Oh, and if you want to hear literal, I forgot about an evidentiary hearing to discern if your evidence of self defense is even admissible in a court trial or not. :grin

I do have to agree with Marc though to a degree. It does seem that (although not written as so) there is some level of interpretation there by the Supreme Court.

[Msterbeau]

Well, Thou Shalt Not Kill, is not something that would come before the Courts. It's not a Law. You gave a bad example and we put it into the closest reality would could. It doesn't matter how vague it is... it's not a law and has no point in this discussion.

In cases not covered by the Constitution... Dude.. everything is covered by the Constitution in that if it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it falls under States Rights, as spelled out in the Constitution. The laws of the state where you committed the crime would be applied. It would only come before the Supreme court if someone claimed those Laws were unconstitutional.

Thats be problem with Judges making Law from the Bench.... Thats not thier Job. Judges are sopposed to Judge if something is or is not legal. If there is no law to cover it... it's not thier job to make a law to cover it. Congress makes the laws...

I didn't say "covered by the Constitition". I said things "never considered by the framers of the Constitution.. " Completely different. Of course everything is covered by it... which is why interpretation needs to permitted.

I would agree that judges should not make laws. That's why we have three branches of government. I'm sure some would call interpreting, law-making. I obviously don't agree because I think they are two distinct processes. Do you have a real world example of what you feel is a judge making a law? That would probably be helpful for me to understand what you mean.

[The_Dark]

Thats the differance, really, between Liberals and Conservatives... Liberals see things in the Constitution that are not there.

[The_Dark]

Roe vs. Wade

This one case led to a good number of states having to throw out thier own abortion laws. Abortion is not covered in the Constitution and therefore, as the Constitution says, falls under States Rights. This is something that should be decided on a state level.

Dont get me wrong... I am all for abortion rights. But the decision in Roe vs. Wade was total and complete crap.

[The_Dark]

which is why interpretation needs to permitted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, thats why they have States Rights. The Constitution covers everything in that it says that anything it does not cover specifically is to be goverend by the individual states. Some people think that States Rights are a problem. States Rights mean it may be legal to do something here, but not there.... They only really seem to care about that on somethings... right now.. it's legal to own a stun gun here... dont take it down south if you dont want to go to jail.

[Shade Everdark]

What about, then, the recent decision of SCOTUS in Kelo v. New London (here)? It seems to me that either decision they could have made would have required interpretation, whether precedent exists or not. Either eminent domain, as laid out in the Constitution (Fifth Amendment, here), is interpreted strictly, meaning that private land may be taken strictly for public works, i.e. roads, utilities, the like, or that public use includes entirely private economic development, and that private businesses may benefit from the community use of said development.

It seems to me that calculated, honest interpretation is integral to a justice's job. Even if a justice says that the law is exactly what the Consitution says and no more, that's still an interpretation.

[Fierce Critter]

Thats the differance, really, between Liberals and Conservatives... Liberals see things in the Constitution that are not there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus, Dark. Do you see EVERYTHING as a liberal vs. conservative issue? I've seen you do this before and not made a comment about it.

But I saw this post and thought, cool - an opportunity to learn something about my government in a forum I can enjoy. Then, you had to throw that in there, seemingly out of nowhere.

Where in the world did your comment come from in this context?!?!?

[The_Dark]

Shade...

Noone that I have talked to or read is very damn happy about that decision... no matter where they stand politically. I'm not sure what was going on there... if we went strictly by the Constitution, which is what the Court was sopposed to do the ruling would have gone the other way.

FC...

Because Liberal/Conservative is exactly what we are talking about. The Constitution has not always been "a living, breathing document". Thats a new way of looking at it, that is pushed by the liberal movement. 40 years ago the thought that we could interpret the constitution to support what ever stand we trook was unthinkable. If you wanted to change the Constitution, you used the Amendment process... now, you just reinterpret it.