40

First, the House and Senate operate however it is their rules say they operate. They can change how committees are apportioned by simply changing the rules. As-is, the few third party or independent members are such a tiny minority that it is more advantageous for everyone if they simply caucus with the party they find most agreeable. The caucus is what's ...


15

I will reference the United Kingdom in my answer, which uses the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In the United Kingdom, the role of the judiciary is not to determine whether a law is valid. Their role is to resolve disputes between parties, and to attempt to interpret what Parliament's intent was when passing a particular law. If Parliament feels ...


13

Would it be allowable for current justices to be removed if, say, 6 of the 9 were deemed "Republican"? (Wikipedia says a previous law that would have shrunk the court only did so on the next vacancy) No. Constitutionally, judges serve for life terms. They can only be removed by impeachment, resignation, or death. Of course, if Congress is already ...


11

I think, if judges are also elected, then there is a better guarantee for democracy. Is that true? No, it is not true. Elected judges is a bad idea, whether it's the local district judge or the US Supreme Court Chief Justice. Several states, Texas being one of them, have elected judges at all levels. This is widely viewed as an unfixable mistake. It is ...


9

Is there a constitutionally valid way to enshrine a system of equal Democrat and Republican representation in the Supreme Court (with a ""neutral"" third portion)? Yes. It is called amendment. The proposal is not possible under the current constitution because it calls for 1/3 of the court to be selected by the other 2/3 of the court, for which there is ...


9

Here is a fourth question with basically the same answer: The executive branch is fundamentally the most powerful one, because it has guns while the others don't. Why does the executive branch simply not use force to enforce its supremacy over the other branches? Constitutions and laws are ultimately just pieces of paper. They only have power because ...


6

Why do you think that would be a good idea? Being a judge is a highly technical skill and how would the general electorate know which judge candidate was best qualified to sit on a supreme court? The best-looking one? The one with the smoothest delivery on TV? This risks degenerating into a popularity contest, which is is precisely what elections are, ...


6

How does granting immunity to an already imprisoned person fit with judicial independence? Judicial independence is a concept that protects the judiciary from undue influence by the other branches. Parliamentary immunity is a concept that protects the legislative from undue influence by the other branches. Parliamentary immunity doesn't support judicial ...


4

So it seems nobody really knows that, or those who know don't speak: ReNew Canada, which covers public infrastructure in the country, says that while a conviction would hit the firm's bottom line, there's no clear indication those jobs would disappear from the Canadian marketplace. In a series of interviews this week, SNC-Lavalin's CEO warned that there ...


4

The UK uses practical steps rather than a written constitution to maintain judicial separation from the executive One of the key difficulties many have in judging the UK constitution is that the rules are not explicitly codified in a single document. That doesn't mean the UK doesn't have a constitution; it just means it is based on case law and precedent not ...


3

Without diving into court statistics, the answer is: probably, though it's impossible to be sure. What Biden was trying to avoid by waiting to comment on the case was the appearance of unduly influencing the jury and not without good reason. External influences on jurors during a trial is a major issue for criminal trials, one jurisprudence considers ...


3

The Thoreau analogy points to the idea that some pieces of circumstantial evidence are more convincing or robust than others. Following the analogy, there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that might suggest a dairy farmer is watering down his milk. For example, the milk might have a funny taste; it might have too thin a consistency; it might ...


3

If the justice system turns out not to be as independent as one would have hoped (especially relative to the executive), parliamentary immunity acts as a safeguard for the legislators' independence: a regime of parliamentary inviolability is necessary in countries that do not provide their parliamentarians with adequate means of protection, especially ...


3

First, allow me to make a distinction between terms that are often conflated: A state is a political unit that controls a more or less well-defined physical territory, such that all the people who live there are subject to the laws set out by the state, and all the resources of that territory are 'owned' by the state (and by extension, the citizens and ...


2

How does the judicial branch conduct constitutional review under parliamentary supremacy? If judges can't strike down laws on the ground that they violate constitution, does that mean Parliament is tasked to police itself to not make unconstitutional law? That doesn't sound right. Why wouldn't the Parliament just make judiciary as weak as possible under this ...


2

(UK) But how can a judiciary be independent if the Parliament can just overrule its decision any time? Doesn't that make the judiciary essentially toothless? This relies on a "gentleman's agreement" not to do that. And, since 1948, ECHR. How does the judicial branch conduct constitutional review under parliamentary supremacy? If judges can't ...


2

In Germany judges cannot be fired by the Attorney General (Justizminister). In the German immigration system an employee of the Bundesamt für Migration (Federal Office for Migration) decides whether a person is eligible for asylum (here). If the person is regected, he or she can go to court over that decision. In Germany the matter is dealt with by the ...


1

Canada has ten "citizenship judges", but they don't seem to be judges in the usual legal sense. Unlike justices of the peace, for example, they are not judicial officers. As far as I can tell, they are not subordinates of the Attorney General of Canada. It may be of interest that, as of the start of 2019, there was a backlog of over seventy thousand ...


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