Doesn't that start a rather dangerous precedent? If Congress and the President can bypass SCOTUS, then why wouldn't Congress just bypass POTUS and SCOTUS? What if the president decided to bypass Congress? Since many here seem to be conceding presidential victory to Hillary Clinton, wouldn't that start a rather frightening turn?
There is something the president could do, which has Constitutional and legal precedent: Increase the number of members. The Constitution does not call for 9 members; historically it has had more and even as few as five.
While removing some of the power of the SCOTUS may seem like a good idea, it is not. Imagine, if you will, a liberal President and Congress, and a predominately conservative SCOTUS. This is a situation that could potentially arise, and earlier than you might think.
The separation of powers, as described in the Constitution, is the only thing that prevents any group from seizing control over our government.
It ain't perfect, but I don't see a better system.
Be careful what you wish for.
Could you cite for me the article and section of the Constitution that grants SCOTUS that power? Where do they derive the authority to nullify or amend laws?
I seem to recall that FDR tried exactly that, and it was determined that it was a bad plan overall...
The Constitution says no such thing. The Supreme Court is the supreme court of appeal for disputes arising under federal law. The Constitution does not make them the "arbiter" of the law - they have arrogated that power to themselves only because the other branches of government and the American people have allowed it.
Congress cannot pass a law that bypasses that part of the Constitution.
Artice III, Section 2 empowers the Congress to define and determine the areas of jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. They passed a perfectly Constitutional law removing the issue of enemy combatant detainees from the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court just ignored that lawful restriction.
In a sense, it is the Supreme Court which has now adopted Andrew Jackson's strategy, but in reverse. They have essentially said to Congress "You have passed your law, now we dare you to enforce it.
I warn you though! This is a most complex area of scholarly investigation and full of many pitfalls. The jist is, no, the Supreme Court is not the final say. You are, I am. We are.
We, the People ...
Ever first and foremost. Let this day be called better "Dependence Day" for without our own and our countrymen's bold re-assertion of our rights -- they are lost to us. We are dependent on our neighbors and countymen.
Try reading the Constitution before you start slinging it around:
Article III, section 2 : "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
This foundational power of Congress was affirmed by ex parte McCardle, and is now teetering on the edge since the Court felt that it could exempt itself from the DTA, which invoked this very power.