It wasn’t the question.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 day ago
The president has no business undermining the judiciary in the first place.
FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 day ago
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 day ago
The president has no business undermining the judiciary in the first place.
It wasn’t the question.
bizarroland@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Although I do find it strange that there is no check on the judiciary.
Like, it’s supposed to be checks and balances, but what stops the judges from passing an unjust law?
Judges have a lifetime appointment in the Supreme Court. The only way they can be removed is by all of Congress coming together and choosing to impeach one of them, and that takes years when Congress is actually functioning.
foodandart@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Well, ostensibly it’s congress that passes the laws and the courts may say how they are interpreted or implemented.
If the courts are interpreting the laws against what the authors of the law intended, it is up to congress to write laws that are better and pass constitutional muster without question…
We’re at the point we are because of poorly written laws that have led to loopholes and poor implementation being taken advantage of.
SippyCup@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
They have no authority to enforce any law. And they have no legislative powers.
Rulings have been ignored multiple times because the judiciary just has no means to enforce what the executive branch refuses to enforce
Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
technically the check for judicial was supposed to be a mix between it being a life position and the legislative branches impeachment/revocal process. The court was supposed to be an impartial non-political, but it’s been slowly slipping into a very heavily politically motivated group.