I know the three branches are supposedly equal, but...?

Question

Doesn't it seem like the judicial branch has the short end of the stick? The president can veto ANY law that comes to him, and Congress can even override his veto. The Judicial branch can only veto a law if it's unconstituional. Doesn't this a little lopsided?

Answer 1

And the Judicial branch determine if a law even applies in a given situation, and determines how the law should be interpreted (where the text isn't explicit).

And the courts rule on constitutional issues (state or federal) which can override statutes passed by the legislature.

Also, remember that a veto can only occur as a law is being enacted. The executive cannot come along a month or year or a decade later and declare the law invalid. The courts can.

So, there is still a balance.

Answer 2

Power is actually most central in the Executive. Of course there are checks and balances. However, the Executive branch can decide how to enforce a law or if the law will be truly enforced at all (forget the veto power). In the past the Executive branch has successfully ignored the powers and decisions of Congress and the Supreme Court.
For example, in the Supreme Court Case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation, in essence stating that the Executive had to protect the tribe and their right to their tribal land from the state of Georgia. Instead, President Andrew Jackson had the Cherokee's forcibly removed using US Military. Why we revere him on our money remains a mystery to me.
The only power Congress has to stop this type of action is via impeachment. But that type of political will/capital has to be supported by the people.

Answer 3

No. It isn't lopsided, it is protecting the public when a law is wrong according to the US Constitution. There are a lot of laws that are changed nearly every year by the select cases the US Supreme Court hears. One in 2005 was the death penalty ordered for juveniles when they were tried as adult offenders. The case Roper v. Simmons was such as case and it sent a precedent to the criminal justice system. The US Supreme Court's order forbid the execution of offenders when they committed crimes as a juvenile, before their 18th birthday. It also afforded protection of those who are mentally ill, retarded and have an IQ less than 70. Simmons brought his case to the US Supreme Court and records showed his IQ was less than 70. In other words he was considered retarded. His murder didn't count as one in which the death penalty could be ordered. In fact, the US Criminal Justice system has been wrestling with ordering the death penalty in several cases. In 2005 alone, this law change forbid 22 inmates from being executed. Texas uses the death penalty in most cases where murder is charged. Many offenders don't even have use of the DNA profiling to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender actually committed the murder. One more point .... WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG??? Study after study (in fact thousands) show that the death penalty is ineffective in reducing crime rates and recidivism - so why order such a penalty? It doesn't even provide justice - only retribution.

Answer 4

the judicial branch can make a ruling that "sets precedence" thereby defining or creating a law in the courts.