How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?

%26amp; Congress and legislating from a Judge`s seat the laws that will rule American citizens across the country?How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?This practice is really getting out of hand; Obama`s selection of Sonia Sotomayor clearly shows that he approves this practice, it is easier to control a couple of Justices in the Supreme court and judges in lesser courts than it is to pass controversial legislation in Congress and the Senate.How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?
Liberals love unelected dictators as long as they agree with them.How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?I think this is more of a GOP talking point than anything else. Railing about partisan judges after you appoint hard Right judges is more than disingenuous. Its not that the Right are afraid of the judicial branch "stealing power"...they are afraid of a balanced or left leaning judiciary. A Right leaning judiciary somehow presents no problems.How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?
The real power is with the people. If the people don't do anything, then anything can happen in the government as we have just seen over the last 2 years and 100 days.How can we stop the Judicial Branch of our government from stealing the power of legislation from the Senate..?You seem confused. The Senate is 1 of the chambers of Congress; the House of Representatives being the other. The judicial branch can't "steal power" from the legislature. This is just whining from people on the right who don't like judicial rulings. They don't have a problem when they agree with a ruling. However, if the right doesn't like a ruling then it's within their power to change the law so that it's constitutional.



Edit: Boriquen, I'm going to ignore your rant and pretend you're a rational person who is actually interested in understanding how this works. You would do yourself a big favor by going to the first link below and learning the basics of government, as you still don't understand it.



No single branch of government (executive, legislative, or judicial) has supreme authority over the others. So, a law can be passed by Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) and signed by the President, but the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) can rule the law is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean the SCOUS "advices" the other branches. If the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that law no longer carries legal authority and can't be enforced. Alternatively, they may rule that only part of a bill is unconstitutional. That's what the courts do. This isn't "legislating from the bench", but I agree that rulings can have farreaching effects on a state or the country, as a whole.



The issue in a bill doesn't have to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. For instance, the internet isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean the SCOTUS can't rule on the constitutionality of internet laws.



The Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion on the basis that it violated the basic constitutional right of privacy. However, over the years, legislatures, both federal and state, have imposed greater and greater restrictions. As long as those restrictions are constitutional, that will probably continue. State government works simililarly to federal, but with the purview of state responsibility. One reason why Prop.187 was found to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court was because it attempted to regulate immigration and immigration was deemed to be a federal responsibility; not a state responsibility. When the gay marriage ban was struck down by the CA Supreme Court, it was because they decided the proposition conflicted with the state Constitution. Consequently, Prop.8 was put on the ballot to change the state Constitution. Once it passed, people immediately filed lawsuits on the basis it was also unconstitutional. I don't know how the court will decide, but they are going to announce their decision on Tuesday, May 26.



You talk about the "liberal commies" using the courts, but the SCOTUS, effectively, chose George Bush as president in 2000. Personally, I don't think there was legal standing for them to be involved in that case. However, as an American, I still think our form of government is excellent, even when I don't always agree with it.