Should Federal Justices check the President in person?
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
233459
No.  Neither should any of the Supreme Court Justices refer to anything but the Constitution and the Federalist papers in there decisions.  Using foriegn law is a violation of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution
398456
Yes, Judicial Watch has a website, it is: www.judicialwatch.org\n\nA list of Judicial Watch officers and staff members is available at this site: http://www.judicialwatch.org/staff.shtml
950964
The Justices are nominated by the President and then must be approved by the Senate.
430601
Whoever the President chooses. Traditionally, it is the Chief Justice. In fact, it doesn't have to be a member of the supreme court, just a federal judge (Johnson was sworn in on the plane to Dallas following Kennedy's death by a Sarah T. Hughes, a federal judge).\n\nDuring the last inauguration, it was widely believed that Chief Justice Rehnquist would not be available due to his health, and there were plans to have Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas administer the oath.
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.
1082215
There is no constitutional impediment to nominating yourself to a  position on the Supreme Court, subject to the advise and consent of the Senate.\nThe trick is getting the consent of the Senate.\nBut William Howard Taft served as both President and Supreme Court Chief Justice (approximately 8 years after he left the Presidency)
596141
Both of the websites listed below offer voluntary yet binding resolution of disputes. They are not formal courts, created by the president and operating at the state or federal level.  They offer private arbitration and/or mediation.  Users can upload evidence and have access to an on-line jury who will decide the matter if the parties wish.  Though the system is convenient, there is a nominal user fee and one should consider the difficulty in enforcing judgments rendered by on-line court's before using the service.  \nhttp://www.i-courthouse.com/main.taf?&redir=0\nhttp://ecourthouse.com/
766750
The powers of the Executive and Judicial have increased over time while the legislative has given up some of it's power.\n\nThe president is head of the national bureacracy and all federal agencies.  Through these agencies he can exercise a lot of power.  For example he determines who runs the FBI and what their priorities should be.  Also another example is the USDA and FDA that determines levels of pesticides that can be used and the general safety of food and medicine.  The president uses the power of Executive Order to do many things including going to war even though that should be a congressional decision.  Through the years presidents have written more and more executive orders breaking the records of previous presidents.  Look up executive order on wikipedia.\n\nThe judicial branch gained a great deal of power when they established that under the constitution they have the right to judicial review.  The judicial branch can create new law by interpreting how a different set of laws come together to create a new law.  For example, the right to privacy is not on the constitution or any federal law.  Privacy was determined by judicial review  to exist based loosely on the 4th and 5th amendments and some previous case law.\n\nChecks and balances works only if all the branches do their job in good faith.  If they are all part of the same political party and just do everything their party leaders tell them to it doesn't work anymore.  This is was the case the past six years that the president's party dominated both houses of congress and the judiciary (very anti-democratic).\n\nChecks and balances is supposed to work because powers are distributed to the different branches.  Judiciary can review a law and deem it unconstitutional and throw it out of the books.  The legislative has the power to change the constitution and holds the money and distributes it to everyone.  The executive runs the country, the bureacracy, and heads the military and can propose law, but can't make it and can't override congress.\n\nCongress is by far the most important and powerful branch because it can make law, change the constitution, and override any other branch of the government as long as it has a 2/3 majority in both houses.\n\nHope this helps.
662661
No there is no conflict with the governments need to maintain national security.  The executive branch of government may search anyone it desires upon a showing of probable cause to the judicial branch.  The  problem under the Bush administration is that it has declared that it does not need to show probable cause and is not subject to judicial oversight.  This is a violation of the constitution.  The founding fathers created a democracy.  Bush seems to be converting us to a fascist government.  Fascist, meaning a merger of government and business.\n\nI prefer the United States as a constitutional democracy.
889739
The President has a right to chose whoever he wants as a member in his cabinet.\n\nYour elected official is your voice, so to speak. Congress has to approve the replacement. They will bring him in & question him, just as they do the Supreme Court Justices, and make their decisions from there.\n\nAnytime that you do not approve of your Senators or Representatives in Congress, in your state, contact them & voice your complaint. I do it all the time & everyone should take it upon themselves to be more active in voicing their opinions to their state representatives. When our elected officials figure it out that "someone" is watching every action they take, maybe they will be more apt to listen to us BEFORE we vote them out of office.  Ya think?\n\nIn Iowa, I go to Iowa Congress. There you will find their email address, add it to your list of "favorites" & email them often. Try it....you'll like it. Kind of makes you feel like your voice counts. Because it does!!
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
753510
1.) President makes the appointment.\n2.) The Senate must confirm the appointment by majority vote.\n\nFrom Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:\n"...and he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
165805
Supreme Court justices are appointed to the high court for their personal views. Are they pro-life or not? Are they strict constructionalists? Where do they stand on the separation between church and state, between the federal gov't and the states.\n\nWhy do you think Supreme Court appointments were a major issue during the last presidential election?  Because a justice's personal views MATTER -- and this isn't something that became an issue in the last 8 years.  It's always been an issue since Marberry v. Madison.
903936
Check is in the mail.
751431
That's a good question and what about a change in venue if he's or she's bad. Maybe log on to court sit and look him or her up.
59752
The senate votes on his nomination and he needs a simple majority to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the supreme court.\n\nThe court will be more conservative and a woman's right to an abortion will be in serious jeopardy.\n\nThe court will also grant the executive (the president) unprecedented permission to continue abusing his power.