Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jul 18, 2011, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

There has to be a way for abuse, or perceived abuses to be reviewed, and dealt with accordingly. Just to keep them honest, and get some full disclosure.

But when the boss of a Justices wife comes before the court, you can't tell me that looks good. Or smells good.

Or when a Chief Justice makes a ruling on a case that pertained to a decision he made while Sec of State in the previous administration...

THAT was Marbury v Madison.

Looks to me that recusals are purely the decision of the justice involved in the current system.

excon · Jul 18, 2011, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Plessy codified Jim Crow ;but that was wrongly decided. There was no "state right" to violate the provisions of the 13 and 14 amendment .

Hello again, tom:

Nonetheless, they WERE and it took the Supreme Court to STOP it. Maybe somebody else HAD authority to act, but they didn't. The Supreme Court did.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 18, 2011, 09:27 AM

The Federal Gvt was acting on it until Plessy (a Louisiana law that the state thought complied with the 14th) . The fact is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says "separate but equal" ;the court made that up. In the majority opinion Justice Henry Brown said :
"[w]e cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable."
Where did he get that from the Constitution ? He made it up.

talaniman · Jul 18, 2011, 09:48 AM

I think in this age of instant information, a lot of what was done in the past, and done now will change under intense scrutiny.

The level of debate has been raised considerably since colonial days. Its not just the closed society of lawmakers, and politicians making arbitrary decisions for us all. We have come a ways since then, and I think some adjustments are in order.

They affect to many people for it not to happen.

tomder55 · Jul 18, 2011, 09:54 AM

Tal agree . The mechanism is in place for Constitutional changes. I see nothing that says judicial fiat .

talaniman · Jul 18, 2011, 10:37 AM

Unfortunately Tom, changes never comes quickly. But it starts with agreement that change is necessary. I think the worst thing that can happen is when one side is so against the changes that have to be made that they fight a war over it, and I at least hope that has changed, at least in a physical sense, because the courts are too valuable a tool in a free society.

Open and accountable are the words that come to mind. Not just for the Supreme Court mind you, but at all levels of the judiary, for government even.

tomder55 · Jul 18, 2011, 10:58 AM

The Constitution gives Congress the power to create and alter all Federal Courts except SCOTUS . They can easily be changed by Congressional action (as I noted in the Marbury case ) .
To change SCOTUS would be for either an amendment ;or for one or both other branches to exercise their Constitutional authority . That would unfortunately create a Constitutional crisis ,since as Ex pointed out ;there is 200 yrs of precedence behind the SCOTUS power grab. So the amendment process is preferred .