Why not have the Supreme Court judge bills before they become law?

Question

I think it would be a great idea. Think of the money saved on enforcement of a law that will be striked down. Also think of the victims of an unjust law being saved the money, time and hassle of fighing it.
Laws should still be able to be challeged later after a curtain amount of time has passed like 4 years.

Don't give me a stupid answer like 'because the Constitution prohibits it' I get that all the time. The Constitution can be ammended.

Strong Collectivist: because we live in a democracy not an oligacy or dictatorship.

The Think: the Constitution can be ammended dummy.

Self-emp... a bill has to go to the President before it becomes law so why not the supreme court? Fewer laws is a bad thing?

Ralfcode: contradicting yourself a little? -"The constitution is set up to have a system of checks and balances on each branch of government. This was designed by the founding fathers to prevent one branch from assuming all the power, and leaving the other two branches in the dust.

Besides, examining the bill for problems and loopholes and such is the job of the legislative branch. That's why they are supposed to hold hearings on each bill, and debate its merits before enacting it or voting it down"

I SAID THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMMENDED, ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID

Answer 1

First of all, don't call other people stupid when you can't even spell "amend" (one "m", not two).

While it's true that the Constitution can always be amended, here's why your idea would never happen:

1) A lot of people have a big problem with the Supreme Court passing judgment on our laws as it is. I doubt that you'd be able to scare up enough support to actually amend the Constitution in the first place.

2) The Supreme Court's case load has been decreasing over time. Whereas they used to hear 170 cases in a year, they now hear about 80-90. To require them to pass judgment on every bill before it becomes a law would require them to hear thousands of cases a year. This would be impossible with a court of only 9 justices. If you increase the number of justices to enable it to hear all of those cases, then you defeat the purpose of having a singular Supreme Court.

3) One of the central considerations in whether or not to hear a case is the issue of ripeness. In other words, there has to actually be some injury before the Court will even think about taking the case. For example, if there were a law making it a crime to say anything bad about the president, the Court wouldn't care until someone was actually prosecuted under the law. In your proposal, the bills are not even laws yet so there cannot possibly be any injury.

4) Whatever money that you save "on the enforcement of a law that will be striked (sic) down" will be spent on allowing the Court to hear all of these cases. As for saving the victims of an unjust law the money, time and hassle involved in fighting the law, who exactly would be responsible for arguing against these laws in the first instance? Presumably, someone would have to foot the bill for this, and the bill would be pretty large given the number of laws passed in a year.

5) As for your "laws should still be able to be challenged later after a curtain (sic) amount of time has passed like 4 years" argument: so, let's say that a law is passed and, under your scheme, is given the OK by the Supreme Court. Now, let's say that thousands of people are arrested under the law, but they have to wait four years to challenge it again. So they wait. Finally, they get to challenge the case. This time, the Supreme Court changes its mind and realizes how wrong it was four years ago. So what about all of those people who were convicted? Were they "saved the money, time and hassle" of challenging the law? No. And they also had to languish in jail for 4 years for no particular reason.

So, hopefully this hasn't been a "stupid answer like 'because the Constitution prohibits it'". Now, I would appreciate it if you could give me a reason for adopting your ideas that isn't stupid, like "[t]he Constitution can be ammended."

Answer 2

You get that answer because it's not a stupid one - it's a valid one. You're just having a problem realizing that...

The constitution is set up to have a system of checks and balances on each branch of government. This was designed by the founding fathers to prevent one branch from assuming all the power, and leaving the other two branches in the dust.

Besides, examining the bill for problems and loopholes and such is the job of the legislative branch. That's why they are supposed to hold hearings on each bill, and debate its merits before enacting it or voting it down.

Does it work? Absolutely. Does it work well? Absolutely not. But it's the best system we've developed so far.

Oh, and there is nothing that says that the supreme court can't rule a law unconstitutional after it's been in effect for a certain time period. The law may be 10 minutes old, or 100 years old. They can still consider it, unless it's part of the constitution itself.

Answer 3

I see your point in a way. It would make things a lot simpler. As it is, the courts are not allowed to "create" laws, only interpret them. Because it's constitutional? Yes. The reason it is constitutional is to maintain a checks and balances of not having any one branch of the government get to powerful. If the courts were allowed to have a hand in creating laws, it would make their hand to heavy. That would make way for abuse of power. In the case that you have given there is a "possibility" that the court would manipulate the law making process to eliminate the four year law review period making their wishes ongoing. You can carry that idea out over and over until we have lost our form of government and it's branches until it's just the court "ruling" the whole country like a dictator of some sort...make sense?

Second Comment

You are missing the point Slick... Everyone...okay most people know the consitution can be ammended. Just because we can do something does that mean we should? Yes, there are some other safe guards to the balance...but why take one of the safe guards away just because we can? Let's turn this question around. Why SHOULD we bring the Surpreme Court into the process of creating laws? What are the upsides? Better understood laws easier to interperet because the court was in on the creation? Maybe so...until a member of the court retires or dies. Then we're back to the same old same old.

By the way... bad form in calling people stupid. Asking a good question like that is an indication you have a good head on your shoulders...Screaming insults at people would seem beneath you.

Tj

Answer 4

It is more effective if the courts are just applying the law and judging the cases. If a case comes up where the law conflicts with other laws then the courts have to make a decision on whether the law is enforcible. That is how it works. The claim that the judges are writing the laws is totally bogus. The Politicians often pass unworkable bills into law.

Sometimes they have asked for an opinion from the supreme court on a bill before they pass it. In the past this has resulted in some bills being modified, some being quietly dropped, and some being voted on and passed to the senate to be passed into law.

Answer 5

It would be a waste of time. There must be some application of a law before the Supreme Court can determine whether that application is consistent with the Constitution and other laws. Basically, under our system, a law must be enforced before it can be challenged. This would also give the Supreme Court far too much power, in my personal opinion.

Answer 6

Because it would be unconstitutional. According to the US Constitution:

1. The function of the judiciary is to interpret existing laws, not potential ones, and

2. The judiciary may not issue advisory opinions (as that would encroach on the powers of the legislature).

As an aside, bills are drafted and reviewed by special judiciary committees in both houses of Congress. Not only are these committees composed of legislators who are educated as lawyers, but they also have plenty of other lawyers advising them. So while the legislature does sometimes push the envelope and gets called on it, there are tons of competent people out there who draft and analyse statutes with a view towards their constitutionality.

EDITED: Okay, "genius", the Constitution "can be amended". In theory. In practice, amending the Constitution to eliminate its central principle -- the separation of powers -- is an impossibility. We have three independent branches of government, and people aren't going to change that. This isn't Iran.

Answer 7

The most logical response to your question would be that no body, not even the SCOTUS, could anticipate every scenario which could possibly occur with the implementation of a piece of legislation and the subsequent myriad ways that individuals could possibly interpret the law, implement it and enforce it. Therefore, the SCOTUS is called upon only when (and IF) a controversy develops after implementation.

Answer 8

Forcing human beings to purchase products from private companies isn't constitutional. it extremely is theft, and extra suitable than possibly the final courtroom will declare it unconstitutional. we choose genuine suggestions, not suggestions that do little different than assure corrupt scientific assurance carriers have shoppers. the familiar public determination replaced right into a sturdy plan, yet a approach or the different it only slipped in the process the hands of a democrat majority.. yeah, we've been given performed.

Answer 9

Think of the expense and time of running them through the Supreme court. Do you know how many laws are passed each year? It would be impossible, unless we had 200 Supreme Court justices.

Answer 10

Why ask a question if you don't want the answer?...the Supreme Court doesn't "review" laws because there is a requirement that there be a "live case or controversy" before them, and a bill is not a case or controversy...