[LiteKeeper]

This article raises an issue I have been thinking about the last couple of days. By design, our tripartite form of Federal government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) is designed to provide "check and balances."

My question is, what checks and balances are there on the Supreme Court? Judicial activism has gotten out of hand...what recourse do the other two branches of government have? Somewhere we have lost that, and the Supreme Court appears to be taking their name too seriously.

[Theodore R.]

Much can be done to check the Supreme Court, but with a weak Congress nothing WILL be done! with a majority vote of both houses, Congress can set aside a Supreme court decision. Similarly, it can pass legislation forbidding court review of an issue (in the Constitution, known as "court-stripping). This has not been done for nearly a century. Congress is complicit in allowing the court to gobble up the power. That protects the members from voter ire. Also, Presidents never ask that the power of the courts be checked. Ronald Reagan in fact named two liberals to the Supreme Court, and the first George Bush one such liberal.

[cc2k]

My question is, what checks and balances are there on the Supreme Court?

The Congress can impeach and remove judges, including Supreme Court justices. The constitution provides for that.

Also, the court has no enforcement authority at all. There are no "Court Police" or "Judicial Police." The enforcement of their decisions is left to the executive branch (with funding directed by the legislative branch). So, a President and/or the congress can ignore a Supreme Court decision and essentially overturn it by not enforcing the decision, or by acting against the decision.