Should the United States eliminate the concept of Judicial Review? Is it good that a judge or judges can overturn the decision(s) of a majority of the American people?
The United States should not eliminate the concept of judicial review. Judicial review is apart of the system of checks and balances. America is a country where the minority is not undermined by the majority because The majority is not always right. Having judicial review is a saftey net to make sure that everyones voice is heard.
The united atates should not remove judicial review. It has been part of the country for this long why does it matter now. If they remove it then there would be alot laws that we would not have and some that we don't want. Majortity vote is not always what is best for every thng else. It can be in some cases, but not this one.
Judical review protects the minority in this country as well as keeps the country from a "mobocracy" such as in the French Revolution. If the new craze was a genocide and all of the new members of congress voted for it only the judges who have been appointed for life could see the problem in that and can stop the carnage from occuring. Plus if congress made a law that only benifits them and is not actually the vote of all the people, who is there to stop them, they can just pass it and give themselves more power than the other branches of the government.
The case with Madison vs. Marbury truly shaped and changed many things in America. Because of that case Judicial Review has been a concept practiced for many years in the US. Therefore Judicial Review should not be eliminated. It protects the minority. And from the past we can see that at times the majority may not always be right. Having that "protection" and voice for the minority is a good thing. I don't think that Judicial Review should be eliminated for that reason alone and because its been used for too long to just get rid of it.
I agree with WILEY. Especially when he said it keeps the nation from "mobacracy". Majority is right sometimes but not always. It is nice to know that there is a safety in knowing there will always be a powerful voice for the minority. And also because the judges are appointed for life they will over time have a great deal of experience and also can learn from other judges. This gives some confidence that the judges will make the correct choices in the best interest of the people.
In regards to CHELSEA I agree that we shouldn't remove Judicial Review. Maybe if it weren't for Judicial Review we would indeed have laws that not everyone would be happy with. However, when you said majority vote is good in some cases, but not this one. What exactly do you mean? Majority can be good and some times not and that is the positive thing about Judicial Review, protection of the minorities.
the us should not remove judicial review because its been with us for a long time. and to maybe take it out of the system might be even more devasting by keeping it. it make sures that everyone gets an equal voice to be heard.
i agree with KIMBERLY that we should not remove the judicial review. ever since that disput the judicial has been a big part of our government. it has helped the minority and not every time has the majority been right.
i agree with VICTORIA M in the fact that it is a safety net and a protection to be able to hear everyone's voice. it does not matter who and what you do your voice does matter. and if judicial review is taking from us then there is no point of a democracy.
Every single law that has been passed in the United States has people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. Either way, people are entitled to their own opinion, and peoples' opinions often differ. However, we've all seen today that there are corrupt people everywhere. Some are our police officers, our politicians, and others can be members of our Congress. Having judicial review protects and backs up the minority when needed. Even though it may be the majority, it may not always be right. Having judicial review assures the American people that we will be heard.
I agree with victoria and ratify. Each and every voice deserves to be heard. And like most of us have been saying, judicial review has held as our safety net, and I'm sure will continue holding much longer. I wonder where our country would be today without it?
Kimberly, Kimberly, Kimberly.. You questioned Chelsea, then reworded exactly what she said. You can't rag on her then agree with her, silly child. It doesn't work that way.
The whole point of judicial review is to protect the minorities WHEN NEEDED. which is what you both said. So, I don't understand how you were confused by what Chelsea said.
although i agee with what ratify says in that we should keep it, i think that the reason for keeping it was wrong. just cause we have had it for a long time is not a reason to keep it, but what it does for this country is a better reason.
going off what samantha has said, the good part of judicial review is that the judges are appointed for life and therefore resistant to corruption, unlike congress who will have to run again in a couple of years so in order to keep their places they will do what ever it takes, even passing a law that will harm the people but gain them political advantages. judicial review is there as a sort of supevisor of things, that will correct when needed.
You have to love America for having a system such as this one. Though I personally believe it is a scary thought that a few people can over-rule the votes of the majority, we all know that the majority is not always right. And on a side note, I loved how Victoria coined the phrase "safety net", it seems that this government is full of them in the right places.
I pretty much agree with everyone so far on the fact that all people in the U.S.A. should be heard, but Samantha brought up an interesting point about corruption, and it brought me to this question. Both the minority and majority are corrupt in certain places at different times in history, but what would happen if the people within the power to do the Judicial review were corrupt? Scary thoughts...
someone has to control the majority from killing all the Mexicans and deporting the rest. We need this law to protect the minorities. Thats the benefit of living in America, power is distributed not only among the branches of government, but also the people.
The United States should not eliminate the Judicial Reviews because this reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote. It also balances the laws and it doesn't let some people have more power than others. It has also been in our government for all this time so why would they care now. In my opinion judges should overturn the decisions of the American people because the majority is not always right and that way the American people don't get harmed by their decision.
I agree with this Guy because if you think about it, it is scary to know that a group of people can over rule the vote of the majority even though they are not always right. Also both minority and majority are sometimes corrupt at some point but luckily the Judicial Reviews help the minority when needed.
I believe that the United State should not eleiminate the concept of Judicial Review. It allows relief to the people to know that there are educated people to help keep our country from decidng to do drastic things. Like many people have said the majority is not always right and this concept helps keep the US form making bad or uneducated decisions.
Agreeing with what Wiley said, the judges doign the deciding have been appointed for life and have a lot of experience that helps them decide wether to overturn decisions or not.
In Addition, close to what This Guy said, it is scary knowing that a couple judges can overturn the decision of millions, but in a case where thos millions are wrong this becomes a really good benefit for the US.
I personally think that Judicial Review is not necessarily a good thing. Though it may not always be right, the majority of people with the same oppinion should not be punished because a few people have a different one. If we always "protect the minority" then the majority of people is going to be upset. Who would you rather have on your side? The majority or the minority? I would choose to have the support of the majority any day. And put yourself in the position. If a judge has a biased opinion that doesn't support your case, would you want to be denied the majority vote with a lawful explanation because a judge doesn't agree for possible personal experiences?
The thought of mobocracy was a good one. Wiley chose a good way to support his opinion. However, I disagree. Though mobocracy is seen as a bad thing, it can also be good. In the 1997 case of the English Au Pair, the defendant was convicted of murdering a baby via Shaken Baby Syndrome, but was able to walk due simply to the judges belief that she was innocent. The only thing letting her free was the judges opinion. How is that fair?
I definitely agree with This Guy in saying that the fact that just a judge can determine my fate, no matter what the majority thinks, is terrifying. I would not want this to be the case if it were me on the line.
I believe Judicial Review should not be eliminated in the United States. The majority of Americans may not always be in the right, and the minority do need some sort of protection. Judicial Review must be working if it has been around for so long. Our country must refrain from making foolish or rash decisions that could put the our country in danger. The beliefs of all Americans must be protected, and Judicial Review is one of the many ways of doing just that. The majority must never overrule the minority and vice versa.
I agree with ThisGuy when he says America is great for having such a good system. Our system is one of the many things that makes America great and unique when compared to other countries.
I also agree with Wiley when he says that we must keep away from mobocracys. They are a very dangerous thing that must be avoided in the United States at all costs. A situation such as the French Revolution must be avoided in order to keep the country and its people safe.
I agree with Diana when saying that Judicial Review reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote. I believe that the United States should not take away Judicial Review. The idea of judicial review is part of what makes our country different than other countries; by having Judicial Review it allows the citizens of the U.S. to par-take in the laws passed in our country. By having Judicial Review the minority is favored which makes the government control controlled.
I think the Unites States should keep Judicial Review. Majority does not always make good decisions. Judicial Review is there to protect the minority and allow them to have a voice. It makes sure that the law is followed and overrules with what they think is best.
This Guy, judges are able to preside over court for life, so that they are unable to become corrupt. If a judge has become corrupt someone can inform the House of Representatives and an impeachment can begin.
Ressul, although I agree with you on the fact that a judge determining your fate is terrifying, judges have knowledge of the law and are supposed to view a case using good judgement.
Yes. The Judicail Review should be eliminated. Now yes, it does protect the minority, but hey, guess what. The minority are the ones who lost in the first place. If they lost fair and square, then there is no reason for there to be the Judicial Review to change the outcome. It doesn't seem fair that 9 judges can completely overrule a law passed by Congress, agreed upon by the majority of America. In some cases, if the majority is stupid and voted for something completely idiotic, then yes, the Review would be there to change it. However, despite how many idiotic people there are in America, there many smart-ish people too. Therefore, there would be no need to correct such an error. Not only that, but the Judicial branch gave this power to themselves. It wasn't ever discussed that they should receive such power, they just declared it. Now that is unconstitutional.
Ressul makes a good point. If we always protect the minority, then the minority would be winning constantly, and the majority would become upset. If a classroom full of kindergardeners wants to play tag, and 3 of them want to play hide-and-seek. You say 'majority rules' and move on. You can't make the other 27 kids upset just because 3 want to do soemhting different. There is always going to be someone on the other side who doesn't agree, and we can't change everything for just that one person. Because eventually, someone else will not agree and they'll be that one lone soul, not you. Everyone has to lose at somepoint.
Yes, America should get rid of the Judicial Review. It makes no sense for one, or nine people to have the power overturn and idea of the American people. If the majority believes something is correct, a small group of people should not have the power to overturn their idea. Such a small number of representatives, can not possibly know exactly what the masses want, or know is right. People in power usually tend to sway towards their party's ideals anyway, I realize this is why there are nine judges of differing parties and backgrounds, but still it CAN happen. Voters are being looked past because of the reviews, their voices are not being heard. Representatives are not always correct, or just, this is why the Judicial Review should be eliminated, or at least limited in its power.
The U.S. should not eliminate Judicial Review due to the significance it holds in protecting the minority opinion. However, the system is subject to flaw. Just because the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life does not mean that they are free from corruption. Specifically, what if the minority opinion IS that of the justices? In that case, nine people would overrule the votes of millions of Americans. As long as Judicial Review is objective and in favor of the country's well-being, then it should not be eliminated.
I agree with Wiley in that protecting the minority opinion prevents our own French Revolution.
I believe that judicial review is a good idea. The thought that if you can convince most of america to believe in something it can be a law is quite scary. The american public can be swayed as easily as a tree in the wind, if brangelina or lauren conrad say it's a good idea suddenly the public thinks so to! Why not let a group of highly educated highly respected people make choices for the good of the country? Now I know this may seem like underestimating the masses but honestly with all of the "advancments" supposedly happening in world education people refuse to aknowledge that the world is becoming more close minded and less invovled in their surroundings. So maybe a little elitism isn't such a bad thing?
I do not agree with most of the people on this blog. Yes, you are all saying how the Reviews are protecting the minority, and how everyones voice is being heard, but that isn't nesissarily true, actually its almost hypocritical. If there are only nine people voting on something, obviously not EVERYONE is being heard. There is no way that everyone will be pleased with the outcome of the vote. The judges are most likely going to sway towards their party's ideals, like i stated perviously. It is a lot like a Diarchy when you think about it, which is a system of government where multiple people, usually 2, hold absolute power for life. That is kind of what America is against if you haven't noticed.
So I get the vibe no one else agrees with my view.... Ressul yes judges may be biased but really who isn't???? And goofy kid, wow is someone bitter??? did you lose dodgeball every week as a child? anyways while I DO sgree that the minority does need to lose does that make the majority right? is their were 18, 16 yr olds in a room and 5 of them wanted to study while 13 want to go kill puppies does that mean the majority still rules???
The US should not eliminate the concept of Judicial review because it is a great system of checks and balances that keeps the minoritiy voice heard. Yes having judges that can overturn a majority of people is great because sometimes the majority isn't right and the judges are thinking what would benefit the majority. Sometimes what's popular isn't always right.
Joe i get what you're saying how everyone's voice isn't being heard and you make a very good point about the Diarchy, but I think what the Judicial Reveiw is for the greater good. So everyone's voice isn't being heard but it might make better outcomes for our country
In our previous session of rhetorical jousting, the mysterious entity that is known only as Joe boldly confronted the words of his majesty, moi. If my memory serves me well, he said to "keep it pithy" and that my "book" was an "eye opener" if not an "eye sore". So, before I engage in this current squabble, I'd like to dedicate Part 6 of The Chat Chronicles to Joe, in response to his dauntless insurgency.
Staring at the sun is quite the eye-sore as well, but it still shines brightest amongst all the other stars in our sky. Though, it appears that you have gazed into its brilliance for a tad too long, or else you would have clearly seen my definitive stance on the subject. However, lucky for you, I understand that the blind cannot see and therefore I'll be certain to clearly express my opinions in the future, for I am benevolent toward the handicapped.
Upon entering this entangled thicket of misinformed leaves ensnared within the vines of poor cases, I sought to clear a path with my well versed machete and light the way with the torch of reasoning. However, despite my daring, I knew not which direction I was headed. It was not because idiocy cast me in a darkness that distorted the true bearings of the sun, preventing me from discerning east from west and vice versa; so don't flatter yourselves. No, I knew that I was headed north, and that I would eventually reach my destination. What had me lost was which direction I should take. Towards the North-East lay a gentle river that would propel me forward until it spilled into the sea, with little effort on my end. The other, the North-Western route, was a straggled path through the mountains, fraught with danger. It proposed the same end as the North-Eastern passage, but without the promise of seeing the light at the end of that tunnel. Despite these concerns, my gallant mind was set, and off I headed toward the fate that awaited me; whether it was to be a cold and lonesome death, or joyous basking in the sea of self admiration, a sea whose waves crashed on the shore and whispered "I'm better than you," because you know what?- I am.
What does all this mean? It means that you, the guardians of the outnumbered, defenders of the few, are about to face the sun in all of its glory. I actually find this most... comical. You see, here you all are, upholding the sanctity of judicial review in the name of the minority, as a majority! Well, perhaps you are about to witness your arguments first hand, as I, a minority, attempt to trump the opinions of you, the majority. According to you, it really shouldn't be too hard, since the majority tends to be corrupt and is in need of the reprimanding ruler of the minority to set them straight once more. I must say, you do represent the "self-serving" image of Congress quite well. You're far more preoccupied debating the proper credence of judicial review than you are informing yourselves on what it actually is. However, a lone challenger appeared, albeit pathetic. Ressul. Simply put man, you are a gazelle without a leg standing resolute against a pack of ravenous wolves. To me, you are nothing more than bait, and already dead.
Oh, and as a final note, I pray that you don't dishevel your dignity any further by refuting my claims with complaints of "pithy" and subsequent stupidity. Just because I don't participate in your exhausted methods of debate, doesn't mean that I am any less credible. To be frank, your "Opinion: I agree with _____ because/I disagree with _____ because" structure is stifling, and I'm not even claustrophobic.
Skimming through your paltry replies whilst combing through the widespread misunderstanding of judicial review, I have gathered the following 2 withstanding arguments in support of judicial review: 1) The majority isn't always right, such is the concept of checks and balances. 2) We've had it this long, why get rid of it? Though the second is a pathetic argument at best, it's not nearly as pathetic as the frequent misconceptions I have observed, such as; that the American people are involved in judicial review, or the idea that judicial review is the authority of a judge pass judgment on the people. Read, and read carefully, because I am throwing you all a free bone.
Judicial review is the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare statutes and treaties passed by legislature unconstitutional, but only if said statute or treaty is in direct relation with a current adjudication of the Supreme Court. Basically, if the Supreme Court can't rule on a case because the law that applies to the case contradicts the constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to declare it unconstitutional, basically nullifying it. This isn't the most accurate explanation or summary, but it does get the basic point across. Why does this help your argument? It further restricts the conditions of which judicial review can be used, limiting the ability for it to be abused. Your welcome.
Part 9: Just painting the portrait of a cruel Mistress named Hypocrisy.
Where did judicial review originate? Well, you could say the Marbury v. Madison case, but which concepts really brought it about? Here, I'll answer. Article III of our lovely Constitution, which in short says that it is the duty of the judiciary courts to interpret and preserve the meaning of the Constitution. Now, if a law passed by legislature contradicted the constitution, it would thus prevent the judiciary branch from acting in accordance to the role that the Constitution had bestowed upon them. So, basically, it's implied that if the courts can't properly act, they have the power to deconstruct the dam that is preventing them from moving forward. It was by this logic that the Supreme Court (who ruled over the Marbury v. Madison case) established the concept of judicial review. However, despite such a concept being included in some state constitutions, it was never included in the federal constitution, only implied. It wasn't until much later with a doctrine in 1914, followed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1933, that it became an official "notion" due to common practice.
With that analysis presented, I will now provide my definitive stance on the subject, along with two primary theses that support my opinion to combat your two theses highlighted in the previous section.
The concept of judicial review should be eliminated because: 1) Nowhere is it mentioned in the Constitution that the power of judicial review is to be given to the Supreme Court or any other preceding courts, and in regards to the 10th amendment, any power not delegated by the Constitution is reserved for the States and the People; and 2) The courts are to decipher the meaning of the constitution and the statutes passed by state legislature, but who would better understand those laws than the states who wrote them?- and under Article IV of the Constitution, those that serve in state legislature take an oath to uphold the constitution, the very thing the judicial system declares it is doing under the concept of judicial review.
Now, I'd just like to take a moment to sort out any confusion you will undoubtedly have in regards to how judicial review is hypocritical. Sometimes certain brush strokes just need to be thicker. So, let's return to our base colors before we apply them to canvas.
- The Supreme Court is considered the supreme authority when it comes to interpreting the constitution, and under Article III it is the role of the judiciary branch to interpret and preserve the Constitution. - Judicial review is the concept that the judicial branch has authority over the legislative branch when it comes to statutes passed by legislature. - The concept of judicial review is just that, a concept, and not stated in the Constitution.
Now, let's mix our primary colors to get purple, green, and orange.
- The Supreme Court assumes that since the Constitution has no mention of judicial review, it must be okay. - They employ the use of judicial review, questioning the constitutionality of legislative acts. - The people of legislature who are directly appointed by the people, both of whom have certain rights that are illustrated in the 10th Amendment, are being overruled by a small minority that are not directly appointed by neither the state nor the people.
Throw all of those colors together, and we get *cough* brown.
- The Supreme Court, who is supposed to literally translate the Constitution, has created an "official" authority on the basis of implication, an authority that overrules other acts of authority passed by legislature, who are required by Article IV to keep the terms of the Constitution, as interpreted by the judicial branch, in mind.
My dear Mr. Chat, the sun my be the brightest star in our sky, but, it is not the brightest in our universe. It is just much closer and more obnoxious. I look forward to chuckling to myself many more times whilst I engage in reading this comic strip of yours in the future. Thankyou.
The United States should not eliminate the right to Judicial Review by the Supreme Court. Going back to the begining, the principles that this country was founded on are based so that all have equal opportunity- capitalism- and that everyone can practice their beliefs, within reason. While you can say that the those who came for religious freedom still held prejudice for other religions, Quakers on the most part, disproving their 'misson-statement' of equality; we must judge on their original intent. With that in mind, Judicial Reviews, as stated by many others, protects the individuals and minority's rights. It acts as yet another balance needed by our flawed system, protecting personal beliefs- leading to advancement as a society. If Judicial Reviews were not allowed, the majority would control our country; and as history shows, majorities only lose power with a big bang (French Revolution). Hence leaving our country as a biased hypocratical 'city upon a hill'. Yet instead the power of Judicial Reviews let minorities have an equal opportunity and allows our political and moral views to sway, reflecting the current times and differing situations throughout time.
@A Goofy Kid, you're right when you make that comparision of kindergarners playing tag - I agree with you- yet you're so far off base Evel Knievel couldn't of even made that jump in your logic. The situation would be that you have a classroom with "27 kids" Christian and "3 kids" Jewish and they all want to celebrate their own holidays within that religion; now I ask you to apply your same deduction and ask yourself if that's constituational? Of course not, but great attempt at logic none the less.
First of all, can I start by asking Mr. Chat a question. Do you plan on publishing your comments in a book?
Anyways, I really don't know what side to take on this discussion. On the one hand, judicial review is really great and has done a lot of good for our country, and on the other, it has at times been abused and used for the betterment of one's self.
So with that being said, I still would have to agree with it. Consider for a moment, if the state of Arizona passes a law saying that there is no punishment for murder. I sure as heck would want that to get appealed to the supreme court so that they could find it unconstitutional. This is a very extreme case and would likely never happen. But things of this significance have changed or been kept the same due to judicial review. Secondly, the judges in the supreme court are appointed by the very person who was elected by the very people that we elected. It seems like too far a distance for us individuals to have an influence on, but it's not. And while the Founding Fathers might not have planned on something like this, they sure didn't stop it when they had the chance.
I believe that the United States should definitely not eliminate judicial review. In a country where the opinions of the people can be swayed quite easily, it is not a good idea to leave decisions up to the majority and leave it at that. Just because most people may think one thing, it does not mean that their opinions are automatically right or just. Power in numbers should not determine or over rule the power of the minority, which is why Judicial Review should stick around.
I agree with eblinn and like his use of the term checks and balances. Isn't that what this country is all about? Making sure that one particular form of government gets too powerful?
And to everyone that thinks that the judges are biased and swayed. Yes they are, but not very much for a couple of reasons: 1) They took an oath when they were sworn into office. 2) Think about the amount of pressure they have on every decision they ever make. It would be mighty hard to make a decision that is based solely on what will benefit you the most when you have a whole country that will send you hate mail and death threats. Think about being biased now.
I agree with Victoria and Samantha. They both seem to have the same views I do in the sense that the majority should not be able to just dominate the minority. The judicial review is a great tool the minority can use to be heard.
"@A Goofy Kid, you're right when you make that comparision of kindergarners playing tag - I agree with you- yet you're so far off base Evel Knievel couldn't of even made that jump in your logic." ooooo BOOM roasted.
@Ressul, I can feel my blood pressure rising when I read your argument, I frankly don't know where to begin. Despite what I'm about to say, this is not a personal attack on you- just your argument. Firstly, you state your opinion as a "not necessarily" - say your view, don't keep a foot in the door with an opening remark. Secondly, the majority's opinion is not "punished because a few people have a different one", they simply disagree and the ruling is make favoring are unfavoring the majority; never punished. Nextly, the minority doesn't always win - if a class was getting ice cream and they all wanted vanilla and I wanted chocolate guess what we'd be eating? The fact your argument says "we always protect the minority" isn't finished; we always protect the minority from unconstituational rulings - it's amazing how those three words make your statement seem obvious, rather then unjust. And based off of your own deductions previously stated I'd want to be on the side of the minority any day - cuz then I could rule the majority, RIGHT? Not only that, but the majority and minority naturally swing because of this opportunity created by JUDICAL REVIEWS. If you disagree with that I can respect that, but go ahead and look at the history of politics and come back to me on that. Any prevention of this pendulum will lead the minority (those without power) to simply take the power they were suppressed from. FINALLY, biases within judges should not effect rulings. Obviously humans are innately biased, yet as a judge it is their job to leave those biases at the door and simply ask if it's constituation or not. Yet this doesn't always happen, you're right; but if you're in the favor of the majority - as you say - then you would want this bias to appear in the courts because the MAJORITY of those judges would agree with you. Excellent job of spotting corruption and human flaw, but that human flaw only weakened your agrument. Remember to state your opinion Ressul, but make sure you're argument backs it up next time - I'd appreciate it.
I'd like to thank Mr. Max for this opportunity to rant :)
Well, I think that they should not remove judicial review, because the minority should have a chance to win, too. The majority is not always right. Also, if they removed it now, it is a little bit too late, because what would happen with all the laws they have overturned in the past? Nothing. Sort of a lost cause, right? Even though I'm sure things will come up in the future, it isn't really worth the struggle. The minorities voice deserves to be heard, and if they want to use whichever supreme court agrees with them to their advantage, all the power to them. It all depends on which side you are on in the voting, because I'm sure any minority would take advantage of judicial review if they had the chance, even if now they say they do not agree with it.
Michael Case. To be honest, I am not surprised that you are in support of the power of a select few. Just saying. However, I am not here to insult you for being you, I am here to review your opinions in accordance to the Constitution of Sense.
First, I'd like to pick some weeds from that garden of ignorance you are growing. For starters, the use of judicial review has only been employed twice by the Supreme Court, in the Marbury v. Madison and the Dred Scott v Sandford cases. Second, if you even read what I wrote, you'd have a better understanding of judicial review and understand that statutes can only be declared unconstitutional and thus are nullified if they are unconstitutional. They can't just take any law and eliminate it. So, when you used your little murder example, you are assuming that the Constitution specifically addresses the subject of murder. Well, it does say that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law." Many consider this a constitutional basis for capital crimes such as murder, and their subsequent punishments, but again that is the for judicial branch to decide. Regardless, here is where your horrid misinformation discredits your opinion. There are already laws passed that label murder as a punishable crime. Arizona can't just pass a law that says "murder is allowed" when they already have one saying "murder isn't allowed". If anything, they would have to make an amendment of the current law, and if there is no law that says anything about murder at all, then what is there for the courts to exercise judicial review? Then again, you said it yourself, that's a stupid example to begin with.
Now, I'd like to address your point about "biased judges". 1) Look up Article IV, or actually read what I said. I specifically addressed the fact that legislature is held to the same constitutional standards as the judicial branch, just under different pretenses. 2) Simple psychology. You have a group of 100 people, and an intimate group of 10, group 1 and 2 respectively. Say 50 people in group one are for something, and 5 people in group 2 are for the same thing. In which group would your own personal opinion be swayed most? According standard and tested psychology, you'd sooner agree with the group of 10 than you would with the group of 100. I could go into reasons why, but that's not the point. The point is, you are simply eliminating reason and logic for the sake of your poorly informed opinion. Just because my lemon came from my yard, doesn't mean it is any less acidic than the lemon from your yard.
Now, I am not saying that the majority is always right, that is foolish, but how does that make the minority always correct. I'm going to be flat and say that the recurring "in defense of the minority" objection isn't going to fly, because it has little to do with judicial review, and nothing to do with how it works. The only influence that it serves here is the fact that a minority of judges can overturn the majority ruling of legislature. They aren't protecting the views of the minority, they aren't trying to weaken the majority, it is simply a minority against a majority in the context of judicial review. Neither am I endorsing laws that violate the Constitution and believe that they should be passed without any form of prevention. Without a safe-guard, the Constitution would be meaningless, but is judicial review the best path? No. What should be employed in its place? This is not the debate to say, so don't bother trying discredit me by asking such a question. You'll only humiliate yourself. So please, pick up that bone I threw you in Part 8: Feeding the Rats.
I do not believe that judicial review should be removed from the American judicial system, although it does bring to light questions of whether or not it is always safe, not to mention wise, to lay the will of the American populous in the hands of a select few judges. Judicial review protects the rights of the minority, who would most likely otherwise be swept under the carpet and forgotten about.
The judges who are given this great responsibility hold their positions for life which should offer some sort of solace. Many of these people have seen history in action and are not likely to fall victim to the adage, "Those who do not learn history are destined to repeat it." If they have not been there to witness it, it can be almost completely guaranteed that they have thouroughly studied it and are not going to be easily swayed to pursue a wrong course of action merely becuase it will appease the majority.
I completely agree with Wiley, judicial review prevents another French Revolution from happening and is able to break down increasing mob-mentality amoung the majority of the populous when a particularly controversial subject comes to the forefront of the American political scene.
I also agree with Michael Case. The fact that these judges are sworn into office and have entire nation watching them with critical and skeptical eyes would make it near to impossible for the judges to pass a partial, biased, or unfair ruling that would benefit only themselves or someone close to them. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to become Supreme Court judges and shoulder the responsibility and power of being able to overturn the will of the American public, so obviously the men and women who have been selected have been thouroughly reviewed and have shown themselves to be worthy and highly capable candidates who will, to the best of their abilities, make unbiased decisions.
By the way, A Goofy Kid, the point of judicial review is not to constantly reward the minority and disregard the thoughts and opinions of the majority. Judicial review is used rarely. Most often, the Supreme Court sides with the majority. You make it sound as if the Supreme Court judges are completely vapid, insipid creatures who, at a moment's notice, will throw common sense to the wind and side with the minority, whatever the situation.
judicial review should be eliminated, as their power is greater than the other two branches of the government. The checks and balances system is totally thrown out if the supreme court has the power to say what is and isn't unconstitutional. It should be a game of rock, paper, scissors: one branch checks over one, and so on. But with judicial review, rock is given the power to tear paper, as well as smashing scissors.
Victoria- just because judicial review is in place does not mean the minority rules. if many supreme court justices are in favor of the majority, all it does is put more power into their hands.
Josefina (or joe)-Great point. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%." IF everyone cannot be right, then what makes it so these people are the final voice
Oh, and by the way, A Goofy Kid, I just wanted to point out a few more things I forgot to add in my last post.
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned that there are an equal amount of "smart-ish" people who make up for all the unintelligent people in the United States.
Did you know that the average reading level for Americans is that of a 7th grader? Or that most newspapers are written between a 5th and 7th grade level so that any average readers can understand it? How about the fact that according to the National Adult Literacy Survey, 50% of all Americans cannot read well enough to make low-level inferences based on what they read? Are you aware that in 2007, 6.2 million students between the ages of 16 and 24 (16% of the population of people this age) were high school drop-outs?
I don't know about you, but facts like these make me question the mass-intelligence of the American populous.
If you want to trust the fate of your country to a majority that can't read above the level of a 12 year old, go right ahead. I'm moving to Canada.
The Judicial Review should not be removed. This law enables the minority to have a fair chance, which is something that this country has been aiming for all throughout its history. It is true that this power can be used wrongly, but the majority is definitely not always right and without this power the minority wouldn't stand a chance. What would be the point for an immigrant to travel and get citizenry in America if they have just as little voice in America as they did in their own country? If we took this away, wouldn't it go against most of what this country was built to do - give everyone a voice? This power has been in place for a long time, and for the most part has done its job... why remove it?
Ringo Starr - I completely agree... Your statistics are disappointing, but something we can't ignore. To let a large group of uneducated people be able to run over a small group of educated people would not be fair. I don't question the intelligence of the American populous as you do... but I sometimes wonder what would be different if those uneducated people were educated.
Jeffrey - I can see your point of view, that the checks and balance system is off when Judicial Review is added. It is something I hadn't really thought about, but I still would disagree with you. It is important for the United States to watch how much power it gives to its Government, with power it is easy to get carried away... but it is important for the country to also take into consideration the minority and give it a fighting chance... this problem is difficult to solve and I think that any other solution (Other than Judicial Review) could probably lead to an even worse checks and balance system.
I believe that the Judicial Review should not be removed. The majority may be right a majority of the time but for the times it is not, it is nice for the minority to be heard. Sheesh, I wonder how many times that has been said, feels like I'm beating a dead horse. I agree with Victoria M and everyone else who reiterates her checks and balances theory. I can't see the point of removing the Judicial Review because it honestly seems like a good idea to me.
And I may have missed about 30 minutes of class last week so I might be wrong but I'm preeetty positive the majority isn"t out to kill Mexicans Shabbir. ha
If the Supreme Court was made up of more members than legislature, judicial review would still be the same, only now it is the majority overpowering the minority. So please, for the love of my sanity and all that is good in the world, leave this "it's for the minority" concept at the door, cause you're all boarded on a one-way train and it's going nowhere. Honestly, if I wanted to hold "intellectual" discussion with the asinine and mentally defunct, I'd sooner go on Fox News than return to this forsaken blog.
Michael Case makes a good point. People may say that the the Judicial Review overrides the majority, but they were put there indirectly by the majority from several different elections.
I think the united states should not eliminate the judicial review. They are there to try to make the best decisions for this country. I believe the judges are well educated and are doing what is best for the people. Majority isn't always right, and the judges are there to try to do the true right.
i have to agree with Wiley, the judicial review is protecting the minority's opinion in this country.
I also have to agree with Diana. the judges reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote.
I am kind of caught in between Joe and Victoria M. I believe that it should be majority vote because if a majority of the people would like there sides thought on a law to be appraised , but what if you have a small group of people and have a strong argument that is very important and the opposing side had a greater amount of people with not such a strong argument why it should be passed. There shouldn’t be a majority vote in all cases that would be totally outrageous. Just think of this senario. What if the two sides were to abolish slavery and to keep slavery? The greater majority voted to keep slavery. Does that make it right? So I guess my finally thought is that the judicial review should be abolished.
The Judicial review should not be changed because it give the minority a chance to be heard. The minority is able to overturn the law and make others realize why that law is there and why it is important. Judicial review helps to make sure that powerful people don't take advantage of the constitution and taking advantage of their positions. It can cancel laws made by states and government. This helps because it ensues that there isn't another Hitler out there sneaking around the laws like Burr who almost got away with being president instead of Jefferson.
I agree with KateLynn Veterans have fought to have their voice heard.For example Marthin lUTHER kING JR. HE WAS ONE MAn standing up for what he thought was right, he reresented a hole group of peope and he was right even though most of the south dissagreed with him.
Ringo Sstarr also had a point that history would most likely be repeating itself and past mistakes.
In regards to wiley reffering back to samantha; altough judges on the supreme court are elected for life, this does not disuade them from corruption. A majority of judges are recommended on a presidents last spur to keep his party or his view safe so that the next president can not change his policies. In a way then the judges are curropted in the sense they were there for that certains presidents use.
NEBEYOUUUUUU, i am confused as to why you think judicial review should be banished. you use slavery as an exapmle, well by abolishing judicial review, would the majority win then and slvery kept?
I ask, is this even a problem? Judicial review has been used TWICE, the Marbury/Madison case and Dred/Sanford. This entire conversation has been a bunch of what ifs. What if the judiciary overrode the minority, The majority? WHAT if? Judges lately don't seem the need to open the review. So even if there is a possibility of a law unjustly overturned, so far noone has set a precedence for doing so. There's no problem with the system, and if its not broken, don't try to fix it.
Yes, Judicial Review is a good thing, just as the House of Represenatives is a good thing. The mass of the people may want something that isn't in their best interest. The Judicial Review is able to deny the nation something they want that may not be for their best interest.
I don't think it's really a question of the minority having voice. Any minority will find sympathy in the right company, and if the minority really feel that they need to be heard, they will search for the right people to hear them, gay marriage in California. It isn't a question of minority being heard as much as it is the good of the country being looked out for.
The United States should not get rid of Judicial Review because it a helpful tool in the American justice system. The Majority is not always right that is the main factor here. Most people like to jump on the band wagon even if the do not believe in what they are following. Judges for the most part know what they are doing and can make the right decisions. This reminds me of 12 angry men. The minority coming out and standing up for what they believe in.
The United States should not eliminate the concept of judicial review. Judicial review is apart of the system of checks and balances. America is a country where the minority is not undermined by the majority because The majority is not always right. Having judicial review is a saftey net to make sure that everyones voice is heard.
ReplyDeleteThe united atates should not remove judicial review. It has been part of the country for this long why does it matter now. If they remove it then there would be alot laws that we would not have and some that we don't want. Majortity vote is not always what is best for every thng else. It can be in some cases, but not this one.
ReplyDeleteJudical review protects the minority in this country as well as keeps the country from a "mobocracy" such as in the French Revolution. If the new craze was a genocide and all of the new members of congress voted for it only the judges who have been appointed for life could see the problem in that and can stop the carnage from occuring. Plus if congress made a law that only benifits them and is not actually the vote of all the people, who is there to stop them, they can just pass it and give themselves more power than the other branches of the government.
ReplyDeleteThe case with Madison vs. Marbury truly shaped and changed many things in America. Because of that case Judicial Review has been a concept practiced for many years in the US. Therefore Judicial Review should not be eliminated. It protects the minority. And from the past we can see that at times the majority may not always be right. Having that "protection" and voice for the minority is a good thing. I don't think that Judicial Review should be eliminated for that reason alone and because its been used for too long to just get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with WILEY. Especially when he said it keeps the nation from "mobacracy". Majority is right sometimes but not always. It is nice to know that there is a safety in knowing there will always be a powerful voice for the minority. And also because the judges are appointed for life they will over time have a great deal of experience and also can learn from other judges. This gives some confidence that the judges will make the correct choices in the best interest of the people.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to CHELSEA I agree that we shouldn't remove Judicial Review. Maybe if it weren't for Judicial Review we would indeed have laws that not everyone would be happy with. However, when you said majority vote is good in some cases, but not this one. What exactly do you mean? Majority can be good and some times not and that is the positive thing about Judicial Review, protection of the minorities.
ReplyDeletethe us should not remove judicial review because its been with us for a long time. and to maybe take it out of the system might be even more devasting by keeping it. it make sures that everyone gets an equal voice to be heard.
ReplyDeletei agree with KIMBERLY that we should not remove the judicial review. ever since that disput the judicial has been a big part of our government. it has helped the minority and not every time has the majority been right.
ReplyDeletei agree with VICTORIA M in the fact that it is a safety net and a protection to be able to hear everyone's voice. it does not matter who and what you do your voice does matter. and if judicial review is taking from us then there is no point of a democracy.
ReplyDeleteEvery single law that has been passed in the United States has people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. Either way, people are entitled to their own opinion, and peoples' opinions often differ. However, we've all seen today that there are corrupt people everywhere. Some are our police officers, our politicians, and others can be members of our Congress. Having judicial review protects and backs up the minority when needed. Even though it may be the majority, it may not always be right. Having judicial review assures the American people that we will be heard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with victoria and ratify. Each and every voice deserves to be heard. And like most of us have been saying, judicial review has held as our safety net, and I'm sure will continue holding much longer. I wonder where our country would be today without it?
ReplyDeleteKimberly, Kimberly, Kimberly..
ReplyDeleteYou questioned Chelsea, then reworded exactly what she said. You can't rag on her then agree with her, silly child. It doesn't work that way.
The whole point of judicial review is to protect the minorities WHEN NEEDED. which is what you both said. So, I don't understand how you were confused by what Chelsea said.
Care to explain?
although i agee with what ratify says in that we should keep it, i think that the reason for keeping it was wrong. just cause we have had it for a long time is not a reason to keep it, but what it does for this country is a better reason.
ReplyDeletegoing off what samantha has said, the good part of judicial review is that the judges are appointed for life and therefore resistant to corruption, unlike congress who will have to run again in a couple of years so in order to keep their places they will do what ever it takes, even passing a law that will harm the people but gain them political advantages. judicial review is there as a sort of supevisor of things, that will correct when needed.
ReplyDeleteYou have to love America for having a system such as this one. Though I personally believe it is a scary thought that a few people can over-rule the votes of the majority, we all know that the majority is not always right. And on a side note, I loved how Victoria coined the phrase "safety net", it seems that this government is full of them in the right places.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with everyone so far on the fact that all people in the U.S.A. should be heard, but Samantha brought up an interesting point about corruption, and it brought me to this question. Both the minority and majority are corrupt in certain places at different times in history, but what would happen if the people within the power to do the Judicial review were corrupt? Scary thoughts...
ReplyDeleteIf they were then they could be removed from their positions as judges.
ReplyDeletesomeone has to control the majority from killing all the Mexicans and deporting the rest. We need this law to protect the minorities. Thats the benefit of living in America, power is distributed not only among the branches of government, but also the people.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should not eliminate the Judicial Reviews because this reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote. It also balances the laws and it doesn't let some people have more power than others. It has also been in our government for all this time so why would they care now. In my opinion judges should overturn the decisions of the American people because the majority is not always right and that way the American people don't get harmed by their decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this Guy because if you think about it, it is scary to know that a group of people can over rule the vote of the majority even though they are not always right. Also both minority and majority are sometimes corrupt at some point but luckily the Judicial Reviews help the minority when needed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United State should not eleiminate the concept of Judicial Review. It allows relief to the people to know that there are educated people to help keep our country from decidng to do drastic things. Like many people have said the majority is not always right and this concept helps keep the US form making bad or uneducated decisions.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with what Wiley said, the judges doign the deciding have been appointed for life and have a lot of experience that helps them decide wether to overturn decisions or not.
In Addition, close to what This Guy said, it is scary knowing that a couple judges can overturn the decision of millions, but in a case where thos millions are wrong this becomes a really good benefit for the US.
I personally think that Judicial Review is not necessarily a good thing. Though it may not always be right, the majority of people with the same oppinion should not be punished because a few people have a different one. If we always "protect the minority" then the majority of people is going to be upset. Who would you rather have on your side? The majority or the minority? I would choose to have the support of the majority any day.
ReplyDeleteAnd put yourself in the position. If a judge has a biased opinion that doesn't support your case, would you want to be denied the majority vote with a lawful explanation because a judge doesn't agree for possible personal experiences?
The thought of mobocracy was a good one. Wiley chose a good way to support his opinion. However, I disagree. Though mobocracy is seen as a bad thing, it can also be good. In the 1997 case of the English Au Pair, the defendant was convicted of murdering a baby via Shaken Baby Syndrome, but was able to walk due simply to the judges belief that she was innocent. The only thing letting her free was the judges opinion. How is that fair?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with This Guy in saying that the fact that just a judge can determine my fate, no matter what the majority thinks, is terrifying. I would not want this to be the case if it were me on the line.
ReplyDeleteI believe Judicial Review should not be eliminated in the United States. The majority of Americans may not always be in the right, and the minority do need some sort of protection. Judicial Review must be working if it has been around for so long. Our country must refrain from making foolish or rash decisions that could put the our country in danger. The beliefs of all Americans must be protected, and Judicial Review is one of the many ways of doing just that. The majority must never overrule the minority and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with ThisGuy when he says America is great for having such a good system. Our system is one of the many things that makes America great and unique when compared to other countries.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Wiley when he says that we must keep away from mobocracys. They are a very dangerous thing that must be avoided in the United States at all costs. A situation such as the French Revolution must be avoided in order to keep the country and its people safe.
I agree with Diana when saying that Judicial Review reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote. I believe that the United States should not take away Judicial Review. The idea of judicial review is part of what makes our country different than other countries; by having Judicial Review it allows the citizens of the U.S. to par-take in the laws passed in our country. By having Judicial Review the minority is favored which makes the government control controlled.
ReplyDeleteI think the Unites States should keep Judicial Review. Majority does not always make good decisions. Judicial Review is there to protect the minority and allow them to have a voice. It makes sure that the law is followed and overrules with what they think is best.
ReplyDeleteThis Guy, judges are able to preside over court for life, so that they are unable to become corrupt. If a judge has become corrupt someone can inform the House of Representatives and an impeachment can begin.
ReplyDeleteRessul, although I agree with you on the fact that a judge determining your fate is terrifying, judges have knowledge of the law and are supposed to view a case using good judgement.
Yes. The Judicail Review should be eliminated. Now yes, it does protect the minority, but hey, guess what. The minority are the ones who lost in the first place. If they lost fair and square, then there is no reason for there to be the Judicial Review to change the outcome. It doesn't seem fair that 9 judges can completely overrule a law passed by Congress, agreed upon by the majority of America. In some cases, if the majority is stupid and voted for something completely idiotic, then yes, the Review would be there to change it. However, despite how many idiotic people there are in America, there many smart-ish people too. Therefore, there would be no need to correct such an error. Not only that, but the Judicial branch gave this power to themselves. It wasn't ever discussed that they should receive such power, they just declared it. Now that is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteRessul makes a good point. If we always protect the minority, then the minority would be winning constantly, and the majority would become upset.
ReplyDeleteIf a classroom full of kindergardeners wants to play tag, and 3 of them want to play hide-and-seek. You say 'majority rules' and move on. You can't make the other 27 kids upset just because 3 want to do soemhting different. There is always going to be someone on the other side who doesn't agree, and we can't change everything for just that one person. Because eventually, someone else will not agree and they'll be that one lone soul, not you. Everyone has to lose at somepoint.
Victoria...Everyone's voice was heard; the minority just lost, like it should.
ReplyDeleteYes, America should get rid of the Judicial Review. It makes no sense for one, or nine people to have the power overturn and idea of the American people. If the majority believes something is correct, a small group of people should not have the power to overturn their idea. Such a small number of representatives, can not possibly know exactly what the masses want, or know is right. People in power usually tend to sway towards their party's ideals anyway, I realize this is why there are nine judges of differing parties and backgrounds, but still it CAN happen. Voters are being looked past because of the reviews, their voices are not being heard. Representatives are not always correct, or just, this is why the Judicial Review should be eliminated, or at least limited in its power.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should not eliminate Judicial Review due to the significance it holds in protecting the minority opinion. However, the system is subject to flaw. Just because the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life does not mean that they are free from corruption. Specifically, what if the minority opinion IS that of the justices? In that case, nine people would overrule the votes of millions of Americans. As long as Judicial Review is objective and in favor of the country's well-being, then it should not be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wiley in that protecting the minority opinion prevents our own French Revolution.
I agree with Ressul. Judges may be biased.
I believe that judicial review is a good idea. The thought that if you can convince most of america to believe in something it can be a law is quite scary. The american public can be swayed as easily as a tree in the wind, if brangelina or lauren conrad say it's a good idea suddenly the public thinks so to! Why not let a group of highly educated highly respected people make choices for the good of the country? Now I know this may seem like underestimating the masses but honestly with all of the "advancments" supposedly happening in world education people refuse to aknowledge that the world is becoming more close minded and less invovled in their surroundings. So maybe a little elitism isn't such a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with most of the people on this blog. Yes, you are all saying how the Reviews are protecting the minority, and how everyones voice is being heard, but that isn't nesissarily true, actually its almost hypocritical. If there are only nine people voting on something, obviously not EVERYONE is being heard. There is no way that everyone will be pleased with the outcome of the vote. The judges are most likely going to sway towards their party's ideals, like i stated perviously. It is a lot like a Diarchy when you think about it, which is a system of government where multiple people, usually 2, hold absolute power for life. That is kind of what America is against if you haven't noticed.
ReplyDeleteSo I get the vibe no one else agrees with my view....
ReplyDeleteRessul yes judges may be biased but really who isn't????
And goofy kid, wow is someone bitter??? did you lose dodgeball every week as a child? anyways while I DO sgree that the minority does need to lose does that make the majority right? is their were 18, 16 yr olds in a room and 5 of them wanted to study while 13 want to go kill puppies does that mean the majority still rules???
The US should not eliminate the concept of Judicial review because it is a great system of checks and balances that keeps the minoritiy voice heard. Yes having judges that can overturn a majority of people is great because sometimes the majority isn't right and the judges are thinking what would benefit the majority. Sometimes what's popular isn't always right.
ReplyDeleteI COMPLETELY agree with what Victoria said....the majority is not always right....and it is like a safety net. Great comparison.
ReplyDeleteJoe i get what you're saying how everyone's voice isn't being heard and you make a very good point about the Diarchy, but I think what the Judicial Reveiw is for the greater good. So everyone's voice isn't being heard but it might make better outcomes for our country
ReplyDeletePart 6: For Joe
ReplyDeleteIn our previous session of rhetorical jousting, the mysterious entity that is known only as Joe boldly confronted the words of his majesty, moi. If my memory serves me well, he said to "keep it pithy" and that my "book" was an "eye opener" if not an "eye sore". So, before I engage in this current squabble, I'd like to dedicate Part 6 of The Chat Chronicles to Joe, in response to his dauntless insurgency.
Staring at the sun is quite the eye-sore as well, but it still shines brightest amongst all the other stars in our sky. Though, it appears that you have gazed into its brilliance for a tad too long, or else you would have clearly seen my definitive stance on the subject. However, lucky for you, I understand that the blind cannot see and therefore I'll be certain to clearly express my opinions in the future, for I am benevolent toward the handicapped.
Now, onto the quarrel at hand.
*Sigh*
Part 7: Playing the Devil's Advocate
ReplyDeleteUpon entering this entangled thicket of misinformed leaves ensnared within the vines of poor cases, I sought to clear a path with my well versed machete and light the way with the torch of reasoning. However, despite my daring, I knew not which direction I was headed. It was not because idiocy cast me in a darkness that distorted the true bearings of the sun, preventing me from discerning east from west and vice versa; so don't flatter yourselves. No, I knew that I was headed north, and that I would eventually reach my destination. What had me lost was which direction I should take. Towards the North-East lay a gentle river that would propel me forward until it spilled into the sea, with little effort on my end. The other, the North-Western route, was a straggled path through the mountains, fraught with danger. It proposed the same end as the North-Eastern passage, but without the promise of seeing the light at the end of that tunnel. Despite these concerns, my gallant mind was set, and off I headed toward the fate that awaited me; whether it was to be a cold and lonesome death, or joyous basking in the sea of self admiration, a sea whose waves crashed on the shore and whispered "I'm better than you," because you know what?- I am.
What does all this mean? It means that you, the guardians of the outnumbered, defenders of the few, are about to face the sun in all of its glory. I actually find this most... comical. You see, here you all are, upholding the sanctity of judicial review in the name of the minority, as a majority! Well, perhaps you are about to witness your arguments first hand, as I, a minority, attempt to trump the opinions of you, the majority. According to you, it really shouldn't be too hard, since the majority tends to be corrupt and is in need of the reprimanding ruler of the minority to set them straight once more. I must say, you do represent the "self-serving" image of Congress quite well. You're far more preoccupied debating the proper credence of judicial review than you are informing yourselves on what it actually is. However, a lone challenger appeared, albeit pathetic. Ressul. Simply put man, you are a gazelle without a leg standing resolute against a pack of ravenous wolves. To me, you are nothing more than bait, and already dead.
Oh, and as a final note, I pray that you don't dishevel your dignity any further by refuting my claims with complaints of "pithy" and subsequent stupidity. Just because I don't participate in your exhausted methods of debate, doesn't mean that I am any less credible. To be frank, your "Opinion: I agree with _____ because/I disagree with _____ because" structure is stifling, and I'm not even claustrophobic.
Part 8: Feeding the Rats
ReplyDeleteSkimming through your paltry replies whilst combing through the widespread misunderstanding of judicial review, I have gathered the following 2 withstanding arguments in support of judicial review:
1) The majority isn't always right, such is the concept of checks and balances.
2) We've had it this long, why get rid of it?
Though the second is a pathetic argument at best, it's not nearly as pathetic as the frequent misconceptions I have observed, such as; that the American people are involved in judicial review, or the idea that judicial review is the authority of a judge pass judgment on the people. Read, and read carefully, because I am throwing you all a free bone.
Judicial review is the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare statutes and treaties passed by legislature unconstitutional, but only if said statute or treaty is in direct relation with a current adjudication of the Supreme Court. Basically, if the Supreme Court can't rule on a case because the law that applies to the case contradicts the constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to declare it unconstitutional, basically nullifying it. This isn't the most accurate explanation or summary, but it does get the basic point across. Why does this help your argument? It further restricts the conditions of which judicial review can be used, limiting the ability for it to be abused. Your welcome.
Part 9: Just painting the portrait of a cruel Mistress named Hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteWhere did judicial review originate? Well, you could say the Marbury v. Madison case, but which concepts really brought it about? Here, I'll answer. Article III of our lovely Constitution, which in short says that it is the duty of the judiciary courts to interpret and preserve the meaning of the Constitution. Now, if a law passed by legislature contradicted the constitution, it would thus prevent the judiciary branch from acting in accordance to the role that the Constitution had bestowed upon them. So, basically, it's implied that if the courts can't properly act, they have the power to deconstruct the dam that is preventing them from moving forward. It was by this logic that the Supreme Court (who ruled over the Marbury v. Madison case) established the concept of judicial review. However, despite such a concept being included in some state constitutions, it was never included in the federal constitution, only implied. It wasn't until much later with a doctrine in 1914, followed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1933, that it became an official "notion" due to common practice.
With that analysis presented, I will now provide my definitive stance on the subject, along with two primary theses that support my opinion to combat your two theses highlighted in the previous section.
The concept of judicial review should be eliminated because:
1) Nowhere is it mentioned in the Constitution that the power of judicial review is to be given to the Supreme Court or any other preceding courts, and in regards to the 10th amendment, any power not delegated by the Constitution is reserved for the States and the People; and
2) The courts are to decipher the meaning of the constitution and the statutes passed by state legislature, but who would better understand those laws than the states who wrote them?- and under Article IV of the Constitution, those that serve in state legislature take an oath to uphold the constitution, the very thing the judicial system declares it is doing under the concept of judicial review.
Part 10: The Color Wheel
ReplyDeleteNow, I'd just like to take a moment to sort out any confusion you will undoubtedly have in regards to how judicial review is hypocritical. Sometimes certain brush strokes just need to be thicker. So, let's return to our base colors before we apply them to canvas.
- The Supreme Court is considered the supreme authority when it comes to interpreting the constitution, and under Article III it is the role of the judiciary branch to interpret and preserve the Constitution.
- Judicial review is the concept that the judicial branch has authority over the legislative branch when it comes to statutes passed by legislature.
- The concept of judicial review is just that, a concept, and not stated in the Constitution.
Now, let's mix our primary colors to get purple, green, and orange.
- The Supreme Court assumes that since the Constitution has no mention of judicial review, it must be okay.
- They employ the use of judicial review, questioning the constitutionality of legislative acts.
- The people of legislature who are directly appointed by the people, both of whom have certain rights that are illustrated in the 10th Amendment, are being overruled by a small minority that are not directly appointed by neither the state nor the people.
Throw all of those colors together, and we get *cough* brown.
- The Supreme Court, who is supposed to literally translate the Constitution, has created an "official" authority on the basis of implication, an authority that overrules other acts of authority passed by legislature, who are required by Article IV to keep the terms of the Constitution, as interpreted by the judicial branch, in mind.
That's what I call Painting the Picture 101.
My dear Mr. Chat, the sun my be the brightest star in our sky, but, it is not the brightest in our universe. It is just much closer and more obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to chuckling to myself many more times whilst I engage in reading this comic strip of yours in the future. Thankyou.
The United States should not eliminate the right to Judicial Review by the Supreme Court. Going back to the begining, the principles that this country was founded on are based so that all have equal opportunity- capitalism- and that everyone can practice their beliefs, within reason. While you can say that the those who came for religious freedom still held prejudice for other religions, Quakers on the most part, disproving their 'misson-statement' of equality; we must judge on their original intent. With that in mind, Judicial Reviews, as stated by many others, protects the individuals and minority's rights. It acts as yet another balance needed by our flawed system, protecting personal beliefs- leading to advancement as a society. If Judicial Reviews were not allowed, the majority would control our country; and as history shows, majorities only lose power with a big bang (French Revolution). Hence leaving our country as a biased hypocratical 'city upon a hill'. Yet instead the power of Judicial Reviews let minorities have an equal opportunity and allows our political and moral views to sway, reflecting the current times and differing situations throughout time.
ReplyDelete@A Goofy Kid, you're right when you make that comparision of kindergarners playing tag - I agree with you- yet you're so far off base Evel Knievel couldn't of even made that jump in your logic. The situation would be that you have a classroom with "27 kids" Christian and "3 kids" Jewish and they all want to celebrate their own holidays within that religion; now I ask you to apply your same deduction and ask yourself if that's constituational? Of course not, but great attempt at logic none the less.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, can I start by asking Mr. Chat a question. Do you plan on publishing your comments in a book?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I really don't know what side to take on this discussion. On the one hand, judicial review is really great and has done a lot of good for our country, and on the other, it has at times been abused and used for the betterment of one's self.
So with that being said, I still would have to agree with it. Consider for a moment, if the state of Arizona passes a law saying that there is no punishment for murder. I sure as heck would want that to get appealed to the supreme court so that they could find it unconstitutional. This is a very extreme case and would likely never happen. But things of this significance have changed or been kept the same due to judicial review. Secondly, the judges in the supreme court are appointed by the very person who was elected by the very people that we elected. It seems like too far a distance for us individuals to have an influence on, but it's not. And while the Founding Fathers might not have planned on something like this, they sure didn't stop it when they had the chance.
I believe that the United States should definitely not eliminate judicial review. In a country where the opinions of the people can be swayed quite easily, it is not a good idea to leave decisions up to the majority and leave it at that. Just because most people may think one thing, it does not mean that their opinions are automatically right or just. Power in numbers should not determine or over rule the power of the minority, which is why Judicial Review should stick around.
ReplyDeleteI agree with eblinn and like his use of the term checks and balances. Isn't that what this country is all about? Making sure that one particular form of government gets too powerful?
ReplyDeleteAnd to everyone that thinks that the judges are biased and swayed. Yes they are, but not very much for a couple of reasons: 1) They took an oath when they were sworn into office. 2) Think about the amount of pressure they have on every decision they ever make. It would be mighty hard to make a decision that is based solely on what will benefit you the most when you have a whole country that will send you hate mail and death threats. Think about being biased now.
I agree with Victoria and Samantha. They both seem to have the same views I do in the sense that the majority should not be able to just dominate the minority. The judicial review is a great tool the minority can use to be heard.
ReplyDelete"@A Goofy Kid, you're right when you make that comparision of kindergarners playing tag - I agree with you- yet you're so far off base Evel Knievel couldn't of even made that jump in your logic." ooooo BOOM roasted.
ReplyDelete@Ressul, I can feel my blood pressure rising when I read your argument, I frankly don't know where to begin. Despite what I'm about to say, this is not a personal attack on you- just your argument. Firstly, you state your opinion as a "not necessarily" - say your view, don't keep a foot in the door with an opening remark. Secondly, the majority's opinion is not "punished because a few people have a different one", they simply disagree and the ruling is make favoring are unfavoring the majority; never punished. Nextly, the minority doesn't always win - if a class was getting ice cream and they all wanted vanilla and I wanted chocolate guess what we'd be eating? The fact your argument says "we always protect the minority" isn't finished; we always protect the minority from unconstituational rulings - it's amazing how those three words make your statement seem obvious, rather then unjust. And based off of your own deductions previously stated I'd want to be on the side of the minority any day - cuz then I could rule the majority, RIGHT? Not only that, but the majority and minority naturally swing because of this opportunity created by JUDICAL REVIEWS. If you disagree with that I can respect that, but go ahead and look at the history of politics and come back to me on that. Any prevention of this pendulum will lead the minority (those without power) to simply take the power they were suppressed from. FINALLY, biases within judges should not effect rulings. Obviously humans are innately biased, yet as a judge it is their job to leave those biases at the door and simply ask if it's constituation or not. Yet this doesn't always happen, you're right; but if you're in the favor of the majority - as you say - then you would want this bias to appear in the courts because the MAJORITY of those judges would agree with you. Excellent job of spotting corruption and human flaw, but that human flaw only weakened your agrument. Remember to state your opinion Ressul, but make sure you're argument backs it up next time - I'd appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to thank Mr. Max for this opportunity to rant :)
Well, I think that they should not remove judicial review, because the minority should have a chance to win, too. The majority is not always right. Also, if they removed it now, it is a little bit too late, because what would happen with all the laws they have overturned in the past? Nothing. Sort of a lost cause, right? Even though I'm sure things will come up in the future, it isn't really worth the struggle. The minorities voice deserves to be heard, and if they want to use whichever supreme court agrees with them to their advantage, all the power to them. It all depends on which side you are on in the voting, because I'm sure any minority would take advantage of judicial review if they had the chance, even if now they say they do not agree with it.
ReplyDeletePart 11: I'm just waiting on a publisher.
ReplyDeleteMichael Case. To be honest, I am not surprised that you are in support of the power of a select few. Just saying. However, I am not here to insult you for being you, I am here to review your opinions in accordance to the Constitution of Sense.
First, I'd like to pick some weeds from that garden of ignorance you are growing. For starters, the use of judicial review has only been employed twice by the Supreme Court, in the Marbury v. Madison and the Dred Scott v Sandford cases. Second, if you even read what I wrote, you'd have a better understanding of judicial review and understand that statutes can only be declared unconstitutional and thus are nullified if they are unconstitutional. They can't just take any law and eliminate it. So, when you used your little murder example, you are assuming that the Constitution specifically addresses the subject of murder. Well, it does say that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law." Many consider this a constitutional basis for capital crimes such as murder, and their subsequent punishments, but again that is the for judicial branch to decide. Regardless, here is where your horrid misinformation discredits your opinion. There are already laws passed that label murder as a punishable crime. Arizona can't just pass a law that says "murder is allowed" when they already have one saying "murder isn't allowed". If anything, they would have to make an amendment of the current law, and if there is no law that says anything about murder at all, then what is there for the courts to exercise judicial review? Then again, you said it yourself, that's a stupid example to begin with.
Now, I'd like to address your point about "biased judges".
1) Look up Article IV, or actually read what I said. I specifically addressed the fact that legislature is held to the same constitutional standards as the judicial branch, just under different pretenses.
2) Simple psychology. You have a group of 100 people, and an intimate group of 10, group 1 and 2 respectively. Say 50 people in group one are for something, and 5 people in group 2 are for the same thing. In which group would your own personal opinion be swayed most? According standard and tested psychology, you'd sooner agree with the group of 10 than you would with the group of 100. I could go into reasons why, but that's not the point. The point is, you are simply eliminating reason and logic for the sake of your poorly informed opinion. Just because my lemon came from my yard, doesn't mean it is any less acidic than the lemon from your yard.
Now, I am not saying that the majority is always right, that is foolish, but how does that make the minority always correct. I'm going to be flat and say that the recurring "in defense of the minority" objection isn't going to fly, because it has little to do with judicial review, and nothing to do with how it works. The only influence that it serves here is the fact that a minority of judges can overturn the majority ruling of legislature. They aren't protecting the views of the minority, they aren't trying to weaken the majority, it is simply a minority against a majority in the context of judicial review. Neither am I endorsing laws that violate the Constitution and believe that they should be passed without any form of prevention. Without a safe-guard, the Constitution would be meaningless, but is judicial review the best path? No. What should be employed in its place? This is not the debate to say, so don't bother trying discredit me by asking such a question. You'll only humiliate yourself. So please, pick up that bone I threw you in Part 8: Feeding the Rats.
I do not believe that judicial review should be removed from the American judicial system, although it does bring to light questions of whether or not it is always safe, not to mention wise, to lay the will of the American populous in the hands of a select few judges. Judicial review protects the rights of the minority, who would most likely otherwise be swept under the carpet and forgotten about.
ReplyDeleteThe judges who are given this great responsibility hold their positions for life which should offer some sort of solace. Many of these people have seen history in action and are not likely to fall victim to the adage, "Those who do not learn history are destined to repeat it." If they have not been there to witness it, it can be almost completely guaranteed that they have thouroughly studied it and are not going to be easily swayed to pursue a wrong course of action merely becuase it will appease the majority.
I completely agree with Wiley, judicial review prevents another French Revolution from happening and is able to break down increasing mob-mentality amoung the majority of the populous when a particularly controversial subject comes to the forefront of the American political scene.
I also agree with Michael Case. The fact that these judges are sworn into office and have entire nation watching them with critical and skeptical eyes would make it near to impossible for the judges to pass a partial, biased, or unfair ruling that would benefit only themselves or someone close to them. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to become Supreme Court judges and shoulder the responsibility and power of being able to overturn the will of the American public, so obviously the men and women who have been selected have been thouroughly reviewed and have shown themselves to be worthy and highly capable candidates who will, to the best of their abilities, make unbiased decisions.
By the way, A Goofy Kid, the point of judicial review is not to constantly reward the minority and disregard the thoughts and opinions of the majority. Judicial review is used rarely. Most often, the Supreme Court sides with the majority. You make it sound as if the Supreme Court judges are completely vapid, insipid creatures who, at a moment's notice, will throw common sense to the wind and side with the minority, whatever the situation.
ReplyDeletejudicial review should be eliminated, as their power is greater than the other two branches of the government. The checks and balances system is totally thrown out if the supreme court has the power to say what is and isn't unconstitutional. It should be a game of rock, paper, scissors: one branch checks over one, and so on. But with judicial review, rock is given the power to tear paper, as well as smashing scissors.
ReplyDeleteVictoria- just because judicial review is in place does not mean the minority rules. if many supreme court justices are in favor of the majority, all it does is put more power into their hands.
Josefina (or joe)-Great point. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%." IF everyone cannot be right, then what makes it so these people are the final voice
Oh, and by the way, A Goofy Kid, I just wanted to point out a few more things I forgot to add in my last post.
ReplyDeleteIn one of your earlier posts you mentioned that there are an equal amount of "smart-ish" people who make up for all the unintelligent people in the United States.
Did you know that the average reading level for Americans is that of a 7th grader? Or that most newspapers are written between a 5th and 7th grade level so that any average readers can understand it? How about the fact that according to the National Adult Literacy Survey, 50% of all Americans cannot read well enough to make low-level inferences based on what they read? Are you aware that in 2007, 6.2 million students between the ages of 16 and 24 (16% of the population of people this age) were high school drop-outs?
I don't know about you, but facts like these make me question the mass-intelligence of the American populous.
If you want to trust the fate of your country to a majority that can't read above the level of a 12 year old, go right ahead. I'm moving to Canada.
The Judicial Review should not be removed. This law enables the minority to have a fair chance, which is something that this country has been aiming for all throughout its history. It is true that this power can be used wrongly, but the majority is definitely not always right and without this power the minority wouldn't stand a chance. What would be the point for an immigrant to travel and get citizenry in America if they have just as little voice in America as they did in their own country? If we took this away, wouldn't it go against most of what this country was built to do - give everyone a voice? This power has been in place for a long time, and for the most part has done its job... why remove it?
ReplyDeleteRingo Starr - I completely agree... Your statistics are disappointing, but something we can't ignore. To let a large group of uneducated people be able to run over a small group of educated people would not be fair. I don't question the intelligence of the American populous as you do... but I sometimes wonder what would be different if those uneducated people were educated.
Jeffrey - I can see your point of view, that the checks and balance system is off when Judicial Review is added. It is something I hadn't really thought about, but I still would disagree with you. It is important for the United States to watch how much power it gives to its Government, with power it is easy to get carried away... but it is important for the country to also take into consideration the minority and give it a fighting chance... this problem is difficult to solve and I think that any other solution (Other than Judicial Review) could probably lead to an even worse checks and balance system.
I believe that the Judicial Review should not be removed. The majority may be right a majority of the time but for the times it is not, it is nice for the minority to be heard. Sheesh, I wonder how many times that has been said, feels like I'm beating a dead horse. I agree with Victoria M and everyone else who reiterates her checks and balances theory. I can't see the point of removing the Judicial Review because it honestly seems like a good idea to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I may have missed about 30 minutes of class last week so I might be wrong but I'm preeetty positive the majority isn"t out to kill Mexicans Shabbir. ha
ReplyDeletePart 12: This used to be a happy place!
ReplyDeleteIf the Supreme Court was made up of more members than legislature, judicial review would still be the same, only now it is the majority overpowering the minority. So please, for the love of my sanity and all that is good in the world, leave this "it's for the minority" concept at the door, cause you're all boarded on a one-way train and it's going nowhere. Honestly, if I wanted to hold "intellectual" discussion with the asinine and mentally defunct, I'd sooner go on Fox News than return to this forsaken blog.
Michael Case makes a good point. People may say that the the Judicial Review overrides the majority, but they were put there indirectly by the majority from several different elections.
ReplyDeleteI think the united states should not eliminate the judicial review. They are there to try to make the best decisions for this country. I believe the judges are well educated and are doing what is best for the people. Majority isn't always right, and the judges are there to try to do the true right.
ReplyDeletei have to agree with Wiley, the judicial review is protecting the minority's opinion in this country.
I also have to agree with Diana. the judges reassures people that their voice is being heard when they vote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am kind of caught in between Joe and Victoria M. I believe that it should be majority vote because if a majority of the people would like there sides thought on a law to be appraised , but what if you have a small group of people and have a strong argument that is very important and the opposing side had a greater amount of people with not such a strong argument why it should be passed. There shouldn’t be a majority vote in all cases that would be totally outrageous. Just think of this senario. What if the two sides were to abolish slavery and to keep slavery? The greater majority voted to keep slavery. Does that make it right? So I guess my finally thought is that the judicial review should be abolished.
ReplyDeleteThe Judicial review should not be changed because it give the minority a chance to be heard. The minority is able to overturn the law and make others realize why that law is there and why it is important. Judicial review helps to make sure that powerful people don't take advantage of the constitution and taking advantage of their positions. It can cancel laws made by states and government. This helps because it ensues that there isn't another Hitler out there sneaking around the laws like Burr who almost got away with being president instead of Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteI agree with KateLynn Veterans have fought to have their voice heard.For example Marthin lUTHER kING JR. HE WAS ONE MAn standing up for what he thought was right, he reresented a hole group of peope and he was right even though most of the south dissagreed with him.
ReplyDeleteRingo Sstarr also had a point that history would most likely be repeating itself and past mistakes.
In regards to wiley reffering back to samantha; altough judges on the supreme court are elected for life, this does not disuade them from corruption. A majority of judges are recommended on a presidents last spur to keep his party or his view safe so that the next president can not change his policies. In a way then the judges are curropted in the sense they were there for that certains presidents use.
ReplyDeleteNEBEYOUUUUUU, i am confused as to why you think judicial review should be banished. you use slavery as an exapmle, well by abolishing judicial review, would the majority win then and slvery kept?
ReplyDeleteI ask, is this even a problem? Judicial review has been used TWICE, the Marbury/Madison case and Dred/Sanford. This entire conversation has been a bunch of what ifs. What if the judiciary overrode the minority, The majority? WHAT if? Judges lately don't seem the need to open the review. So even if there is a possibility of a law unjustly overturned, so far noone has set a precedence for doing so. There's no problem with the system, and if its not broken, don't try to fix it.
ReplyDeleteYes, Judicial Review is a good thing, just as the House of Represenatives is a good thing. The mass of the people may want something that isn't in their best interest. The Judicial Review is able to deny the nation something they want that may not be for their best interest.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's really a question of the minority having voice. Any minority will find sympathy in the right company, and if the minority really feel that they need to be heard, they will search for the right people to hear them, gay marriage in California. It isn't a question of minority being heard as much as it is the good of the country being looked out for.
The United States should not get rid of Judicial Review because it a helpful tool in the American justice system. The Majority is not always right that is the main factor here. Most people like to jump on the band wagon even if the do not believe in what they are following. Judges for the most part know what they are doing and can make the right decisions. This reminds me of 12 angry men. The minority coming out and standing up for what they believe in.
ReplyDelete