My country has a system where all challenges to the Executive Branch are handled by the Supreme Court so lower judges cannot be partial to it. The end result in the US is the proposition to limit challenges to the Executive Branch and center them all in the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court is packed, they can deadlock an administration. It happened here, it is all being dragged to this "solution" to the issue. And once the Supreme Court is packed, there is nothing you can't do because citizens will have to pressure Senate PLUS Congress, and only happened once in 1805. Take care, murica bros.
Marbury v Madison: Unconstitutional laws are null and void. Same for illegitimate rulings by judges. The Executive can ignore challenges to his legitimate powers, as he gets to decide what rulings get enforced, The founders set it up that way on purpose.
In response to the Supreme Court's 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson famously (though possibly apocryphally) said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," effectively ignoring the court's decision and paving the way for the forced removal of Cherokee people from their land.
--------
Not sure how in a supposed democracy we ended up with final power with unelected judges. The doctrine in Marbury v. Madison is itself constitutionally dubious. I dunno where Marshall got it - other than just as a power grab for him.
The civil rights movement was fueled primarily by court decisions I might add. First and foremost Brown v. Board of Education. No one voted for these court rulings.
The argument that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided centers on the idea that the Supreme Court established its power of judicial review without explicit constitutional authority, potentially undermining the balance of power between the branches of government.
Here's a more detailed look at the arguments:
Lack of Constitutional Mandate:
Critics argue that the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional, a power established by Marbury v. Madison.
Overreaching Judicial Power:
Some believe the decision allowed the Court to define its own power, potentially leading to a judicial dictatorship where the Court interprets the Constitution without direct accountability to the people.
Partisan Motives:
Some scholars, like Edward Corwin, have suggested that the case was a "deliberate partisan coup" by Chief Justice John Marshall to advance a Federalist agenda.
Jefferson's Criticism:
Thomas Jefferson criticized Marshall for engaging in unnecessary editorialization, believing the case should have focused solely on the Court's lack of jurisdiction.
Checks and Balances:
The decision is seen as undermining the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances by allowing the judicial branch to exert undue influence over the legislative and executive branches.
Alternative Interpretations:
Some argue that the case could have been decided based on a more straightforward interpretation of the Constitution without establishing the principle of judicial review.
Judicial Restraint:
Some argue that the Court should have exercised judicial restraint and avoided declaring the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, as it was within the purview of Congress to determine the Court's jurisdiction.
Marbury's Commission:
The case involved William Marbury, a Federalist judge appointed by John Adams, whose commission was withheld by Secretary of State James Madison under orders from President Thomas Jefferson.
Judicial Review Established:
The Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison, established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
The Judiciary Act of 1789:
The case involved Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases involving writs of mandamus, which was later deemed unconstitutional by the Court.
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 3 points 1 monthMar 18, 2025 16:32:58 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 2 points 1 monthMar 18, 2025 16:40:56 ago (+2/-0)
--------
Not sure how in a supposed democracy we ended up with final power with unelected judges. The doctrine in Marbury v. Madison is itself constitutionally dubious. I dunno where Marshall got it - other than just as a power grab for him.
The civil rights movement was fueled primarily by court decisions I might add. First and foremost Brown v. Board of Education. No one voted for these court rulings.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 1 point 1 monthMar 18, 2025 16:46:02 ago (+1/-0)*
Here's a more detailed look at the arguments:
Lack of Constitutional Mandate:
Critics argue that the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional, a power established by Marbury v. Madison.
Overreaching Judicial Power:
Some believe the decision allowed the Court to define its own power, potentially leading to a judicial dictatorship where the Court interprets the Constitution without direct accountability to the people.
Partisan Motives:
Some scholars, like Edward Corwin, have suggested that the case was a "deliberate partisan coup" by Chief Justice John Marshall to advance a Federalist agenda.
Jefferson's Criticism:
Thomas Jefferson criticized Marshall for engaging in unnecessary editorialization, believing the case should have focused solely on the Court's lack of jurisdiction.
Checks and Balances:
The decision is seen as undermining the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances by allowing the judicial branch to exert undue influence over the legislative and executive branches.
Alternative Interpretations:
Some argue that the case could have been decided based on a more straightforward interpretation of the Constitution without establishing the principle of judicial review.
Judicial Restraint:
Some argue that the Court should have exercised judicial restraint and avoided declaring the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, as it was within the purview of Congress to determine the Court's jurisdiction.
Marbury's Commission:
The case involved William Marbury, a Federalist judge appointed by John Adams, whose commission was withheld by Secretary of State James Madison under orders from President Thomas Jefferson.
Judicial Review Established:
The Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison, established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
The Judiciary Act of 1789:
The case involved Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases involving writs of mandamus, which was later deemed unconstitutional by the Court.
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 0 points 1 monthMar 18, 2025 22:24:09 ago (+0/-0)
Good laugh anyway
https://gab.com/Vigilance1002/posts/114186684260273454/media/1?timeline=video-clips