Why is the supreme ( or apex) court often called as 'the watchdog of the constitution' ?
343338
In the U.S. the supreme court is tasked with interpreting the constitution.  The supreme court has the power to find laws written the legislature unconstitutional.
236009
I LOVE Marbury v. Madison.  Here's how it works.  The Supreme Court is the weakest branch of the federal government coming out of the writing of the Constitution.  They have one ace in the hole though, when someone wants to know what the Constitution means, they go to the supreme court.\n\nSo anyway, this case comes along, Marbury v. Madison.  The first bit of the opinion was the Supreme Court saying that this case has no standing because it was brought to us when it should have gone to another court first.  THEN they go on to say, pretty much, while we have you here the supreme court has the right to review laws (not in the Constitution) and declare them unconstitutional.  \n\nHow can you argue with that.  If you were gonna argue, you'd go where?  The Supreme Court.  They just GAVE themselves this incredible power that they don't actually have.  \n\nAhhh, good stuff!
573830
the superior court is hard to explain but I will answer with effort. It is also known as Surpreme Court, the biggest court in the US judical branch. that's where all the people like Clarence Thomas work, Only the biggest trials in America are done in the Surpreme Court. Hope that helps...
201061
He gave the court the power of judicial review. Meaning, the court can interpret whether an act by a co-equal branch on the government is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court was given the sole authority to have such discretion.
41619
During the proceedings themselves? That is not possible.  Only a higher court can over rule a court, and that's only if they agree to hear the case in the first place.  Many superior courts will turn cases back claiming juristiction issues, and the Supreme Court rejects cases almost routinely, as few cases rise to the level of a true challenge to current interpretations of the Constitution.
951231
The Constitution does nothing to secure, protect or promote democracy. It establishes a Republic wherein the sovereignty is with the People. The people then elect representatives to voice their concerns. That is why the House of Representatives has elections every two years. It is the House that is supposed to be the most responsive to the will of the ppl.\n   A lynch mob is a democracy. Is that the kind of government you want?
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
394209
check out Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution.  There you will find the powers laid out for you.  \n\nThe judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.  They are not supposed to legislate, the legislative branch does that.  (Congress)  \n\nThe Supreme Court is able to interpret and change laws...to hand down decisions that become law, but are not statutes.  I realize some judges are elected...but many of them are appointed.  This serves to seperate them from elected officials who tend to make decisions that will get them reelected.  For example, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.  This is supposed to ensure that they will not make politically biased decisions in an effort to get votes.\n\n--The Supreme Court has a good website with lots of info.  \n\nThe judicial branch is seperate from the executive and the judicial branches---this was done purposely so that each branch could provide checks and balances on the others....
251861
The Supreme Court acts as the highest level of appelate courts in the United States.  They have the final say in any case that they choose to hear.\n\nAlso, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain types of cases involving certain kinds of Conctitutional issues and disputes between states.\n\nSupreme Court justices are appointed for life.  Senators are elected to 6 year terms.  Senators offices are divided into 3 classes, appropriately named Class I, Class II and Class III.  Every even numbered year, one of the classes is up for re-election.\n\nSo this year (2006 in case you're not paying attention)  one class (I think it's class III) will be elected.  In 2008, the next class is elected, and so on.\n\nThe elections that occur between Presidential elections (2006 for example) are referred to as Mid-Term elections, and usually get less attention, and therefore, more incumbant re-elections.
604163
Absolutely not.  First of all, that would be far too much power for the judiciary to have.  No one branch is to have peremptory oversight over the other.  Second of all, judges might easily see things differently.  Some judges think that not Mirandizing a suspect is constitutional while others don't.  You might easily run into a problem where the justices overseeing the President disagree and then you have gridlock - like we need more of those in our government.  Also, just because those overseers say it's constitutional or not doesn't mean the SCOTUS will agree, so they're a moot entity.  Finally, the President has a chief legal counsel who advises him whether or not something is constitutional - don't you remember Alberto Gonzalez claiming that torture was constitutional?  You say that the judges would report the Prez if he executes an unconstitutional action, but who's to say they're right?  It must be left to the SCOTUS.\n\nMy  biggest point is saved for here though:  you cannot politicize the judiciary.
64298
Judges do that all the time.  I am not saying that they are perfect.  They normally make decisions based on the law that exist at the time.\n\nAs long as the majority of the Supreme Court is able to be unbias, then I am happy.
15683
Its not theat he may not believe in it.  it doesn't matter as much to a suprem court justice except in relation to their past cases.  Stares Decisis mearly means that lower courts must follow the some opinion of the higher courts.  Being on the supreme court of the land, Thomas is not bound by any other court decisions, so really he doesn't technically have to follow any judgments.
820122
Yes, it is important, The U.S. Supreme Justices when they retire or leave or die are apponted by the President, how do you think John Roberts and Samuel Alito became Supreme Court Justices?\nYes , the president does have power in this area when it involves the appointment of Supreme court justices
294245
Under the Westminster model of government that the UK, and I think I'm correct in saying Australia also works under, Parliament is supreme.  It can make or unmake any law that it pleases and is not bound by any law.  This is to do with the doctrine of the Seperation of Powers, where each branch othe state is seperate (in the US the distinctions are more clear).  So basically the courts apply the law and parliament makes it, common law is made by the judges which confuses matters.  The basis position is Common law is judge made law, which is inferior to statute law.  When there is a conflict statute law prevails.  Judges cannot declare law created by parliament invalid so therefore any statute law, regardless of the sphere of influence it is in has precendence over common law.\n\nHope this helps!
865900
Because the U.S. Constitution says so.
557567
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government.\n\nThe court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointed to serve for life, they can be removed only by resignation, or by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The only Justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, was not removed from office because he was acquitted by the Senate.\n\nThe Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III); all other federal courts are created by Congress.\n\nThe court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, the former established in the U.S. Constitution ("In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," in Article III, Section II) and the latter defined by acts of Congress; the latter is used quite a bit more often. Like other appellate courts, the Supreme Court may exercise the power of judicial review, or the power to declare federal or state laws, as well as the actions of federal and state executives, unconstitutional. The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."\n\nThe court's yearly terms start on the first Monday in October and finish sometime in the following June or July. Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases they've heard.
203050
This is what happend in the United States when an activist Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a "Living Document".\n\nSeveral democrats have been recently quoted as having concerns about Judicial nominees because the courts can "make laws".\n\nThis is not true.  Judges "interpret" law.  \n\nLiberal activist judges "interpret" law like Clinton "interprets" fidelity and integrity.\n\nCongress "makes" law.  Citizens "make" case law.