US Supreme Court - checks and balances

A very interesting piece here about a 2005 SC decision which so annoyed most of the US that State legislatures passed laws which specifically went against that verdict.

Useful for A2 G&P students when answering anything involving checks on the SC's power; in this case, Kelo v. City of New London in 2005 the SC decided that the government had the power under the Fifth Amendment to decide arbitrarily that property can be seized by compulsory purchase (or in the jargon "eminent domain") and passed to a third party for reasons of economic development; the public would ultimately benefit because the seizure of land to build a shopping mall would benefit the new owners and as a by-product create jobs. State legislatures subsequently passed laws and constitutional amendments which curbed the impact of the SC decision.

The checks and balances in this instance worked because the original case was opposed by most Americans and their political parties. The "excesses of the Supreme Court" was limited (at least in the view of the Economist Magazine's "Lexington" Column) by the new laws and State constitutional amendments.

Supreme Court Justice Retirement

A few days ago, news broke that Supreme Court Justice Stevens was to retire at the age of 90.

More on the implications of this can be found at the articles above and here - a blog about the Supreme Court written from a neutral perspective by lawyers.

For G&P students, this is all useful stuff for the Supreme Court section of the course - both in terms of the impact this significant change may (or may not) have on the rulings of the court, but also for President Obama's power and influence given his success with the health-care bill. Will he be able to carry the Senate in getting through his chosen candidate, especially given the November mid-terms and the likelihood that they will become a referendum on the reform of health?

More on health-care soon.