What the supreme court can do and can't do?
913890
One thing the Supreme Court cannot do is render it's decisions in a proactive way. They have to react to cases. For example, they could not have ordered Florida's election officials and judges to stop re-counting the ballots in 2000 unless someone, like George Bush, had asked them to render that decision. The Court only acts based on disputes that are brought to them -- a dispute meaning two parties who fervently disagree with one another about some point of law.
952810
Your premise is wrong!  The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again showed that the U.S. Constitution is still alive and working.
463331
The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in criminal cases (or in any case except under very specific circumstances outline by the Constitution).  A criminal Court convicts and them the case works it's way up the system until it reaches the Supreme Court.  If the SCT upholds the ruling, there is no recourse.
760024
Supreme Court cannot intervene in the policy decisions of the govt. as decided by supreme court itself on 31 Oct 2006 in disinvestment policy case. supreme court refuse to intervene in it being a policy decision of the govt. but every policy decision of the govt. must be with in the framework of the Constitution and should not disturb the basic structure of the constitution.
1017376
the supreme courts are swamped.  cases are viewed in the order they come in, before a case can be reviewed a sentence must be obtained, then the attorneys must go through every point of law to determine what to file an appeal on, I believe this procedure is allowed 3 times.
70834
The Supreme Court is independent because a justice can serve for life.  President Bush indicated before he was elected that he would place "strict constructionists" on the court who would decide cases on the merits of the Law only after considering all the facts.\n\nThe fact remains that the country has many issues that could be clarified by new laws.  one good example is obortion, whether you favor or oppose it.  The truth is that the issues divides the country regardless of party affiliation and is highly polarizing.  Therefore, it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that resolves the issue and the Constitution can not be amended for the same reason.  There aren't enough votes on either sidebut more than enough votes to stop the "wrong" decision by the other side.  Because of a failure of the Congress to pass laws, some expect the Supreme Court to take up the slack and legislate from the bench.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers for the three branches of government.  Therefore, regardless of his/her own beliefs, Supreme Court justices must set aside any personal views (one way or the other) and determine based on the arguments they hear and the briefs they read and a study of past decisions, who should win any particular case.  During recent hearings for Supreme Court nonimees, I heard no Politician blame himeself for failing to pass clear laws on any important issue.  Many had to be left vague to even get through Congress.\n\nLet's hope the Supreme Court remains above politics, even if different views are strongly held.  If we don't have the rule of law we have nothing.
1033101
Simple answer . It can't. It's a court ordered judgment on you.
585561
Yep. If someone files a public welfare petiotion on supreme court, supreme court can pass the ruling on it.
270992
It is true that the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants. A common type of case they take up is a case involving a legal issue in which two or more of the federal circuit courts have reached different conclusions on the same issue. The Supreme Court will take the case to settle the relieve the conflicting opinions of the circuit courts.
1135340
One good feature of our laws is that they can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. The "Bill of Rights" which guarantee Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press etc are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  \n\nAnd there is the Supreme Court decision in "Brown v. Board of Ed" which ruled that "separate is not equal" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination.\n\nThen there have been laws for social programs which help people like Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and the legislation that created the Social Security program.  And there are laws for fair labor standards and establishing the minimum wage. \n\nThere are also anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies although these seem to be mostly ignored these days.\n\nFurthermore, a law can be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court so if a locality feels their local law is wrong, they can appeal it. \n\nAlthough in our time laws like the Patriot Act are being used against the people, it was not always so.
1181374
"The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate,"\n\nGo read the rest....
166620
You will have to look it up. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
797688
A. of course.\n\nNot to mention the fact that state constitutions cannot override the federal constitution and they are binding only to the state they're written in.  The best they can do is expand the rights of its citizens and protect their interests.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
267210
The Supreme Court reviews all acts,laws,and statutes,and case opinions both with the federal and state in the American legal system.If the Court feels that the situation is unconstitutional it has the power to void it out.The Courts decision is final and stands supreme.Read the Bill of Rights (the Constitution). There are only a few to read.If you don't have access to a book do a search on the internet.Good luck and happy hunting.You can download e-books to help you with other similar projects in this field.I use to hate learning about government but, now that I am older it is more interesting to learn.Especially now that I know that I can have a positive say in this world as to how it is run since ,government effects everybody sooner or later.We have to think about our future and making it better.I too am studying government except mine is with criminal justice and wanting to help teens.
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
756351
If the acts were unconstitutional they would be overturned by the Supreme Court.  The Court has already ruled that certain rights of prisoners of war must be considered.