3 ms·

The federal courts' powers of judicial review have been established for over 200 years since Marbury v Madison. The inferior courts are also organised pursuant

by pmyteh 2y ago

The federal courts' powers of judicial review have been established for over 200 years since Marbury v Madison. The inferior courts are also organised pursuant to the constitution and have full judicial powers (though can be abolished or rearranged by Congress should they decide): > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (Start of Art. 3). It is good to not GAF about down votes, but do consider the possibility it is because you are confidently incorrect, not because the voters are ill-informed or angry. Source: PhD in political science.

marklubi 2y ago
[flagged]
- eesmith 2y ago
  It now seems that you do agree that Federal judges actually have the ability to order the Executive branch on matters which are not at the President's discretion, yes? Your thesis is that only the Supreme Court gets to decide what is and is not part of the President's discretion? So for the three months with the Supreme Court is out of session, there's no constraint on the President, except by having an emergency session? Is it part of the President's discretion to imprison Supreme Court judges at Guantanamo? If he does that, I believe your view is that no Federal judge has the ability to order the Executive branch to stop. Sounds like you've listened to too many anti-democractic activists for the unitary executive theory - a view common among the rich and powerful, and their sycophants.
- pmyteh 2y ago
  The limits of judicial review are absolutely contested, and there's a perfectly respectable argument that Marbury v Madison was a wrongly-decided power grab by the judicial branch (albeit now settled law). But it's a long way from there to the idea that district courts have no JR power. They are fully constitutional and exercise the 'judicial Power of the United States' as does the Supreme Court. Subject to being overturned on appeal, of course.

by pmyteh 2y ago

marklubi 2y ago

[flagged]

eesmith 2y ago
It now seems that you do agree that Federal judges actually have the ability to order the Executive branch on matters which are not at the President's discretion, yes? Your thesis is that only the Supreme Court gets to decide what is and is not part of the President's discretion? So for the three months with the Supreme Court is out of session, there's no constraint on the President, except by having an emergency session? Is it part of the President's discretion to imprison Supreme Court judges at Guantanamo? If he does that, I believe your view is that no Federal judge has the ability to order the Executive branch to stop. Sounds like you've listened to too many anti-democractic activists for the unitary executive theory - a view common among the rich and powerful, and their sycophants.
pmyteh 2y ago
The limits of judicial review are absolutely contested, and there's a perfectly respectable argument that Marbury v Madison was a wrongly-decided power grab by the judicial branch (albeit now settled law). But it's a long way from there to the idea that district courts have no JR power. They are fully constitutional and exercise the 'judicial Power of the United States' as does the Supreme Court. Subject to being overturned on appeal, of course.