Does the Supreme Court’s role in policy making make the system more or less democratic?

Question

By definition, the Supemem court makes the system less democratic; it can overrule laws passed by the legislative branch, which by virtue of the representatives being directly elected by the people, as opposed to the Supreme Court, whose body is selected by appointment and thus the selection of the justices is less directly tied to the public’s desires....therefore, it is less democratic. Also, justices are appointed, not elected and have indefinite term lengths, so they are more inependent with their policy making.

I didn't mean that SC could overrule laws that it doesn't "like." But it CAN overrule them, if the law is unconstitutional. But this unconsitutional judgement is kinda subjective, right? I don't know, I just got finished writing a paper on this topic and I wanted to see some other opinions before I left the subject alone. Thanks for your answer!

Answer 1

The Supreme Court makes the system more Democratic. It's one of the Checks and Balances that curb the excesses of the moment and preserve the principle of "Majority Rule, Minority Rights."

It's subject to excesses of its own, but can be overruled by the other two branches by Narrower Statutes or, if need be, Constitutional Ammendment.

Part of the job of each branch is to prevent the other two from getting out of hand.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court does not make law. The court reviews and rules on the constitutionality of cases brought before it. The Legislative branch makes laws but does not necessarily have to make laws that follow the Constitution. The Executive branch signs off on the new law, unless the President is able to veto the bill. It is then the Executive branch's responsibility to enforce the law and if a party is injured in this enforcement, then they can bring it before the court, which tests the constitutionality of the law and keeps it or rejects it.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court was one of the last monarchical holdovers from the British Empire, and it shows.

However, it's job is to interpret the laws passed by whomever wishes to bring a law to their attention and judge whether or not that law is in violation of the Constitution.

You see, the Republicans get their jollies off talking about an 'activist court', which is retarded, but so are most Republicans. It's their job to interpret the laws. If they believe a law is unjust by the rules of the Constitution, it's their job to be an activist, go against the stupid political body that created it in the first place, and get rid of it. Or not, as the case may be.

The hilarious right-wing notion of activist judges is just one more reason why I will never vote for a Republican as long as I live. As long as this oversimplified lying machine still exists, my political life will be spent opposing it and everything it stands for. Lies are lies, no matter how you slice it.

The bad part is that Republican voters fall for it time and time again. It is the job of the politician to sway voters to their way of thinking, but if it's a lie that gets you to think like they do, you have only yourself to blame for getting sheared like the sheep you clearly are.

Answer 4

Less, less, less democratic! I hate activist judges who impose their believes on a case. It is their job to rule on the law, NOT TO MAKE NEW LAW! It is usually liberal activists who do this, and it is not right. It is a ursurption of the power of Congress and ultimately the power of the people. Down with activist judges, and up with strict constructionists!

If we are foolish enough to elect a Democrat presidnet in 2008, you can bet that he or she will appoint liberal, activist judges to the Supreme Court! That's is one of the reasons that I will be voting for a Repub president in 2008. The other reason is that the Dems will give amnesty to all the illegal aliens in the country if they gain the presidency.

Answer 5

No, it cannot just "overrule law" that it doesn't like.

It can only declare a law unconstitutional when that law is preempted by a higher law -- either state preempted by federal, or federal statute preempted by the Constitution.

That doesn't reduce the ability of the people to make new laws -- or even to change the Constitution. And that ability is what allows democracy to remain in full force.

Answer 6

i think of you need to attitude it from 3 perspectives; college practise and its availability and affordability, retirement and what the destiny holds for them and how undesirable it must be as adversarial to now and how it somewhat is for their mom and dad living on mounted earning or approximately to survive mounted earning, thirdly-the ecosystem. whilst those issues are no longer without postpone correct all 3 carry extensive social and financial impact for the extra youthful adults of this u . s . a . which will influence them for some destiny years as quickly as they're properly previous their mid 30s and 40s an into their retirment years even. by skill of changing into in contact and helping and taking a hand now with the concepts and regulations which would be made they're helping to set the direction for their destiny.

Answer 7

it's a necessary evil

there has to be some oversight to the democratic process

ex/ what if people voted to make murdering gays or blacks etc legal, that can't be permitted

Answer 8

this is why I always feel that ONE judge on the court should always be independent.