Skip to main content
Law

Return to Answer

accessible link text
Source Link
edit approved Sep 30 at 16:18
Laurel
edit approved Sep 30 at 16:18
Laurel
  • 603
  • 7
  • 18

There are no fundamental protections from a corrupt Supreme Court justice. They can be impeached and that's about it. The Supreme Court adjudicates all disputes under the constitution, a power the Supreme Court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,". There is some scholarship lately that SCOTUS judges may be able to be given honorary positions that maintain their "Offices" while keeping them off SCOTUS cases.

The example you provide has happened. "In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge." - —https://www.acluACLU v.org/cases/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-warrantless NSA -wiretapping Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping

The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a stop and frisk is not an unreasonable search and seizure. They ruled in Utah v. Strieff that stopping someone unconstitutionally, discovering they had a valid arrest warrant, then searching them, was a constitutional stop and search.

There are no fundamental protections from a corrupt Supreme Court justice. They can be impeached and that's about it. The Supreme Court adjudicates all disputes under the constitution, a power the Supreme Court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,". There is some scholarship lately that SCOTUS judges may be able to be given honorary positions that maintain their "Offices" while keeping them off SCOTUS cases.

The example you provide has happened. "In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge." - https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-warrantless-wiretapping

The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a stop and frisk is not an unreasonable search and seizure. They ruled in Utah v. Strieff that stopping someone unconstitutionally, discovering they had a valid arrest warrant, then searching them, was a constitutional stop and search.

There are no fundamental protections from a corrupt Supreme Court justice. They can be impeached and that's about it. The Supreme Court adjudicates all disputes under the constitution, a power the Supreme Court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,". There is some scholarship lately that SCOTUS judges may be able to be given honorary positions that maintain their "Offices" while keeping them off SCOTUS cases.

The example you provide has happened. "In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge." —ACLU v. NSA - Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping

The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a stop and frisk is not an unreasonable search and seizure. They ruled in Utah v. Strieff that stopping someone unconstitutionally, discovering they had a valid arrest warrant, then searching them, was a constitutional stop and search.

Source Link
Atomic Tripod
Atomic Tripod
  • 189
  • 4

There are no fundamental protections from a corrupt Supreme Court justice. They can be impeached and that's about it. The Supreme Court adjudicates all disputes under the constitution, a power the Supreme Court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,". There is some scholarship lately that SCOTUS judges may be able to be given honorary positions that maintain their "Offices" while keeping them off SCOTUS cases.

The example you provide has happened. "In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge." - https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-warrantless-wiretapping

The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a stop and frisk is not an unreasonable search and seizure. They ruled in Utah v. Strieff that stopping someone unconstitutionally, discovering they had a valid arrest warrant, then searching them, was a constitutional stop and search.