It baffles me that any court lower than the Supreme Court of the United States has the judicial power of review to determine constitutionality of national and state laws and executive actions. This allows the various district courts and circuit courts of appeal to each create their own unique case law that may be at odds with the case law created by other district and circuit courts until only by appeal to the SCOTUS can they be reconciled into one universal case law ruling. For example at one time in the Southern California District it was ruled that an accused could be convicted of a capital crime on the basis of a polygraph test. Meanwhile in the capital Federal Court polygraph tests were ruled to be inadmissible as evidence. I do not know if this disparity still exists but it is one example of the sort of conflict that is possible when lower courts are considered to have power of judicial review as well as ordinary powers of original jurisdiction or appeal.
Our system of law limits SCOTUS from taking on any case they wish, instead they are required to follow rules as to whether a case rises to the level of their review. Any disagreement between states automatically goes to SCOTUS, but other cases require standing, damages, disagreement by inferior courts, and a whole slew of other requirements. Although our Supreme Court has deferred judging on many cases I'd like to see them look into, that choice is theirs when a case rises to the point of being available to them.
I have always held that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, while at the same time recognizing our right as a people to amend it, either through Congress or a Convention of the States. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong, though, it really shouldn't take a half-century to right it, like it did with both Plessy and Roe. I am also more of an originalist and see the value in nominating like-minded justices who care more about the Constitution than the loose idea of "the will of the people."
It baffles me that any court lower than the Supreme Court of the United States has the judicial power of review to determine constitutionality of national and state laws and executive actions. This allows the various district courts and circuit courts of appeal to each create their own unique case law that may be at odds with the case law created by other district and circuit courts until only by appeal to the SCOTUS can they be reconciled into one universal case law ruling. For example at one time in the Southern California District it was ruled that an accused could be convicted of a capital crime on the basis of a polygraph test. Meanwhile in the capital Federal Court polygraph tests were ruled to be inadmissible as evidence. I do not know if this disparity still exists but it is one example of the sort of conflict that is possible when lower courts are considered to have power of judicial review as well as ordinary powers of original jurisdiction or appeal.
Our system of law limits SCOTUS from taking on any case they wish, instead they are required to follow rules as to whether a case rises to the level of their review. Any disagreement between states automatically goes to SCOTUS, but other cases require standing, damages, disagreement by inferior courts, and a whole slew of other requirements. Although our Supreme Court has deferred judging on many cases I'd like to see them look into, that choice is theirs when a case rises to the point of being available to them.
I have always held that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, while at the same time recognizing our right as a people to amend it, either through Congress or a Convention of the States. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong, though, it really shouldn't take a half-century to right it, like it did with both Plessy and Roe. I am also more of an originalist and see the value in nominating like-minded justices who care more about the Constitution than the loose idea of "the will of the people."
What we need today is judicial discipline. The Chief Justice and the rest of SCOTUS has let this current situation go on far too long.