Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

Maybe it's just the supreme court, but I thought the judicial branch was supposed to check and balance the power of the executive (and legislative), not bend over backwards to accommodate it.
 
What power needs to be checked here? It's a question of interefering with policy, not of preventing overreaching presidential authority.
 
Ever heard "What we have is a legal system, not a justice system"?

If we had a Justice system, such frivolous case would never have been brought.
 
The Fool said:
...Are US courts not allowed to make decisions that may condemn executive branch policy??
Click to expand...
Looks like this...

I pointed in another thread that U.S. can't be a democracy as long as legislative and executive branches are not separate.

Germany and other European countries do have legislative and executive braches separate.
 
casebro said:
Ever heard "What we have is a legal system, not a justice system"?

If we had a Justice system, such frivolous case would never have been brought.
Click to expand...
who gets to decide what cases are "frivolous"?
 
The Fool said:
ok...the court will determine what is too frivolous to go to court. LOL...that should work.
Click to expand...

Well that is the way it works at the moment for appeals to the High Court of Australia (and other such appeal courts).

High Court of Australia

Most of the Court's work relates to the hearing of appeals against decisions of other courts. There is no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the High Court and parties who wish to appeal must persuade the Court in a preliminary hearing that there are special reasons to cause the appeal to be heard.
Click to expand...

This means the court decides whether the court should decide whether the appeal is valid.
 
gtc said:
Well that is the way it works at the moment for appeals to the High Court of Australia (and other such appeal courts).

High Court of Australia



This means the court decides whether the court should decide whether the appeal is valid.
Click to expand...
Thats right...but that wasn't the point. Cases can be rejected at any number of stages in the judicial process....once it gets into the court system. I was responding to the suggestion that some alternate process would prevent "frivolous" cases making it to court..
 
quixotecoyote said:
Maybe it's just the supreme court, but I thought the judicial branch was supposed to check and balance the power of the executive (and legislative), not bend over backwards to accommodate it.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the court just recognized the President's direct Constitutional authority to set foreign policy. President likes Israel, authorizes sales. Israel (it is claimed) misuses the bulldozers.

"Fine," say the courts. "You wanna deal with it? The proper channel, Constitutionally, is at the next presidential election."

In other words, the President gets to do things that aren't specifically made illegal by Congress (e.g. Iran/Contra).
 
The Fool said:
Thats right...but that wasn't the point. Cases can be rejected at any number of stages in the judicial process....once it gets into the court system. I was responding to the suggestion that some alternate process would prevent "frivolous" cases making it to court..
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem as though Casebro were suggesting that any alternative process be created.

I think we've all had the experience at one time or another of observing some bureaucracy or another and wishing it incorporated a greater element of common sense.
 
Ion said:
I pointed in another thread that U.S. can't be a democracy as long as legislative and executive branches are not separate.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that Canada, where the Prime Minister is usually a member of the legislature (as head of the party with the most seats) is not a democracy?
 
Beerina said:
It sounds like the court just recognized the President's direct Constitutional authority to set foreign policy. President likes Israel, authorizes sales. Israel (it is claimed) misuses the bulldozers.

"Fine," say the courts. "You wanna deal with it? The proper channel, Constitutionally, is at the next presidential election."

In other words, the President gets to do things that aren't specifically made illegal by Congress (e.g. Iran/Contra).
Click to expand...

I can get behind that. My problem was not that the court said, "Your policy is constitutional and has not been made illegal by congress." It appears that they said, "We give you a free pass because it's your policy."
 
Here is the full decision: Link.

In fact, the Court cites at length the Constitutional doctrine that compels them to dismiss the action. The doctrine in question was first enunciated by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803.

Specifically, the unanimous Court's decision makes clear that they are not making an arbitrary policy decision, but rather deciding the issue under constitutional principles:
[P]rudential considerations cannot substitute for constitutional considerations; rather, they assist in identifying cases in which the Constitution forbids courts from hearing.​
The Constitution, the Court found, relegates decisions as to whether to sell materiel to other nations' militaries exclusively in the province of the Executive Branch, thus necessarily excluding from the Judicial branch the ability to review those decisions.
 
Segnosaur said:
So what you're saying is that Canada, where the Prime Minister is usually a member of the legislature (as head of the party with the most seats) is not a democracy?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

(Canada is not a democracy from other criteria either, one being excessive Political Correctness for special interests)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom