Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
The USA political system was set up with "checks and balances", because it was known that men, even leaders, were fallible creatures. The Judicial System watches the Legislators, the Legislators appoint the Judiciary, the people vote for the Legislators etc.
|
Actually, there is at least one place where the checks and balances are relatively incomplete. That is the pinnacle of the judiciary. The top spots within the judiciary cannot be challenged other than by appeal back to the judiciary. While the administration can appoint, and the Senate confirm, no one can stand against them.
Well, not entirely. Technically, the judiciary cannot do anything that is not carried out by the administration. But no one has the gumption to test that. Therefore there is no check against the judiciary once it is in place. Only death changes things.
Now do not suppose that I think there is any very useful method of achieving that bit of balance. Simply refusing to execute the court's order is potentially whimsical. Alternately, Congress could step in and declare that aspects of a ruling are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. But what stops that from becoming another political whimsy? In short, there is no simply answer. The checks and balances ultimately have a stopping point unless one or two branches are willing to tell the third to take a hike. The President can veto. Congress can override a veto. Laws can be redrafted to fit within the parameters the court allows, but no one dares tell them that the vote of the people, through their representatives, overrides them.
I think the court would declare that the people would have to declare a constitutional convention to override them.
Effectively a veto-proof system for them.
I think there is a problem. But I've not seen a workable solution.