Please comment on whether it may be possible to sue the Supreme Court for not doing their job.
Are they the only branch of government that cannot be held accountable for shirking their responsibility that would not rise to the level of impeachment?
Justice Clarence Thomas testified under oath that they were “avoiding” the issue of who is eligible to be President.
Who would hear the case—you take it to federal court. The publicity alone may bring atention to the issue.
If a guy that may die if ordered to go to war doesn’t have standing, I don’t know who does. If that is not a particular injury, I don’t know what is.
Perhaps the estate of a fallen soldier may have standing??
Justice Thomas didn't testify under oath that the SCOTUS was avoiding the eligibility issue. The man who was questioning him made reference to his own status and jokingly asked whether or not he could be POTUS. Justice Thomas was smiling and joking when he said "we're avoiding that issue." He went on joking with him by saying that they (the SCOTUS) were giving him another option - to be a Supreme Court justice because that doesn't require one to be an NBC. Watch the video in full.
Judges have judicial immunity-- they cannot be sued for their official acts.
Are they the only branch of government that cannot be held accountable for shirking their responsibility that would not rise to the level of impeachment?
Yes. The Constitution deliberately created a judicial branch that would be immune to popular pressure-- hence life tenure, the inability of Congress to cut their pay, etc. Impeachment is the only remedy.
Justice Clarence Thomas testified under oath that they were “avoiding” the issue of who is eligible to be President.
I listened to that tape, and I thought he sounded like he was joking, but YMMV.
If a guy that may die if ordered to go to war doesn’t have standing, I don’t know who does. If that is not a particular injury, I don’t know what is. Perhaps the estate of a fallen soldier may have standing??
During the Vietnam War, the courts held that no one had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the war in court, because it was an issue solely for Congress and the voters.
There is one avenue of judicial review that is available, but not until 2012: many states have provisions in their state election laws permitting a voter to sue to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot. But such a suit can be brought only during a very narrow window of time-- in most states, between the time a candidate files to get on the ballot and the time the ballots are printed. In 2008, no one brought such a suit against Obama during the right time period. I expect that someone will in 2012, if Obama runs for re-election.