It will take awhile to digest this - 185 pages of opinions - quite a mess.
[Edited because I needed to remove the listing of opinions, which actually applied to the TX redistricting case]
One initial note. People are quite upset around here with what they perceive as executive usurpations of power. What about judicial usurpation of power? Congress passed a law, that the president signed, specifically stripping the courts’ jurisdiction over these matters, the Detainee Treatment Act.
See the Scalia dissent for more on this.
“Judicial usurpation of power?”
Like, congress passes a law that courts can no longer look into a specific law and courts happily ignore that?
Confgress can easily do that, make what you want to be save from courts part of the constitution. If they are no able to do that, everything a government does must be because of a law that can be challenged in a court room.
Judicial usurpation of power, pffft…
That is EXACTLY why courts have those powers.
OMG, these “unlawful combatants” are actually POWs that do have rights under the Geneva Convention.
Shocking, who would have thought…
Yeah, you see, the Constitution has these little things called “checks and balances.”
One of them is that Congress can set the jurisdiction of the lower courts entirely, and can strip certain things from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
I would suggest reviewing the Constitution.
However, as we know, the Constitution isn’t always crystal clear, especially as to separation of powers issues. But if one applies the common-sense reasoning of the Jackson concurrence in the Steel Seizure cases to the unclear areas of separation of powers generally, then we would conclude that a branch’s assertion of Constitutional power is at its lowest ebb when it is opposed by the other two branches. Not to say it’s gone, but at it’s lowest ebb.
In this case though, it’s pretty clear Congress can strip jurisdiction.
However, if you disagree, you’ll note that the Court’s power is at it’s lowest ebb, given that Congress and the President (he signed the law and didn’t even append a Presidential signing statement questioning it) passed a law saying the Court had no jurisdiction here.
So, yes, “judicial usurpation” of power.[/quote]
I would argue that you cannot exempt a law, or a set of laws from the jurisdiction of a Supreme Court.
If it violates the constituation, the Supreme Court can an must overturn it.
Therefore it must be able to look into all laws.
Legislature cannot argue that they kind of made sure that it was constitutional, because the Supreme Court is the final judge of that, not the Congress.
Yes,checks and balances, they should remain intact.