22

Congress can't override substantive rules of constitutional law Marbury v. Madison is a binding interpretation of what the U.S. Constitution permits or denies, and in substance, this law seeks to change that interpretation of the scope of the judicial power, so that interpretation may not be overruled except via a Constitutional amendment. Neither the ...


8

Advisory opinions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The "case or controversy" clause helps enforce this separation. The judicial branch is responsible for resolving legal disputes by interpreting and applying existing law. In doing so, it may incidentally modify or extend the law. Courts are only supposed to do this to the extent necessary to ...


4

Separation of powers means that the judiciary can't pass laws or executive orders. It doesn't mean that the judiciary can't interfere with their passage and enforcement. Quite the opposite -- the checks and balances inherent in the system ensure that the judiciary can interfere in some cases. One of the checks is the concept of judicial review: the courts' ...


4

No This particular attempt at jurisdiction stripping would fail as it attacks the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction: 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. However, providing it leaves original jurisdiction alone, Congress ...


3

Yes and no. Legally, no: Generally speaking, Marbury holds that it is the constitutional duty of the courts to interpret the law, including the constitution: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two ...


3

They still have the power They generally don’t because: Most activities of a criminal nature no matter how novel can be shoehorned as a new instance of an existing crime. Parliament is much more pro-active in its legislative agenda. The judicial system moves much more slowly.


3

The rationale for the case and controversy requirement is that first, you don't want to burden the courts with resolving hypothetical questions, second, that the law, particularly in common law systems descended from English law, is very fact and context sensitive and may not have a well determined answer in a vacuum, and third, it insures that the courts ...


2

Is there any benefit in writing your local judges? do judges have any power to do anything based upon "casual" written requests of that sort? No. Strictly speaking, a judge ought to ignore requests which are not --officially-- part of judicial proceedings. In theory, the idea is to isolate the judiciary from influences that contravene a judge's duty ...


2

Incidentally, the law is the same in Australia flowing from Re Judiciary Act 1903-1920 & In re Navigation Act 1912-1920 [1921] HCA 20; (1921) 29 CLR 257 (16 May 1921): that is the High Court is not permitted to issue advisory opinions. For a recent discussion of this case see http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/advisory-opinions-rule-law/. Because the Federal ...


2

It cannot until the complaint has been ruled on. Examples of specific complaints can be found online only if the author(s) publishes them after the Court has ruled on it, or the court issues an order based on the complaint. If you want Orders specific to Judge Kavanaugh, they'll appear either here or here.


2

But how strong is the complaint in actual legal terms? So far as I can tell, it's not "legally" doing anything - it can have no bearing on the case. has raised a formal Judicial Conduct Complaint. I don't think it is. I think it's a ranty letter. Firstly, Ball's complaint addresses the two judges (throughout) and CCs the Judicial Conduct Investigations ...


1

Yes. Article 60 allows detention for 60 + 30 days where “there is probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence” which is a threshold which an imaginative investigator and a compliant court can always meet. This does appear to be per charge so it can easily be made indefinite. Japan’s is by no means unique in having laws that ...


1

If I can go through the complaints one by one: Judge 1: Previously worked for Johnson (and received substantial sums of money) - including during the time period where one of the offenses took place That is Mr. Ball's spin on it. The reality here is that judge, Supperstone, provided some sort of legal advice to the Greater London Authority (GLA) ...


1

Several of the answers beg the question that was asked, as least with respect to the question of whether or not the courts can making a binding declaration that laws are unconstitutional. Judicial review as we know it was established in Marbury v. Madison. If you accept Marbury, then it and everything after it is "binding". But prior to Marbury it was an ...


1

[W]hy isn't there an official system to record it? Existing Systems Sometimes there is. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code and many of the other Uniform and Model Act that are adopted by state legislatures has an official commentary which is often adopted officially by the legislature along with the Act. It isn't uncommon for legislation to include ...


1

There is only one way law can be changed in the U.K.: by statutory instrument, either a bill passed by parliament or a minister (or delegated official) acting under a law that delegates power to them. Courts can develop, clarify, interpret, extend or limit law (and they have to because parliamentary drafting is abysmal) and such decisions are binding on ...


1

Judges are people and as such they have all sorts of interests, relationships and beliefs outside the court room. This is true of appointed as well as elected judges. Indeed it is true of anyone exercising power in an official capacity weather elected like a politician or appointed like a civil servant. When these impact on their actual or perceived ability ...


1

There have been plenty of cases where I judge has said "Sorry, guys; I own ten shares of company XYZ so I can't hear a case where XYZ is involved". Even when in practice it's obvious that the share price of XYZ isn't going to move if the judge decides that XYZ has to repair your fridge under warranty or not. But a judge gets a salary, and that salary is ...


1

In most modern democratic countries, the government is divided into three independent branches: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and each is independent of the other. When someone is prosecuted for a crime (or in a civil suit by the government) it is the executive branch (usually through the office of the Attorney General) that acts as ...


1

(US Centric answer) You are absolutely right about there being the potential for a conflict of interest. This is why trials are public, defendants are guaranteed counsel / representation, and the defendant has a right to a trial by a jury of his peers. As others have pointed out, there are appeals that further reduce the likelihood of falling through the ...


1

Wait a minute, what are you actually referring to? Do you mean “salaries” in the word “Money”? The one who do the prosecution is the Department of Justice, while the judge is from the Judiciary. So, judge receives salaries from the Judiciary but not the Department of Justice. We maintain the judge is making verdicts fairly by making judges a Permanent ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible