Text 6553, 83 rader
Skriven 2010-04-02 00:01:04 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
     Kommentar till en text av BjöRn Felten
Ärende: Re: Question about democ
================================
 -=> On 04-01-10  05:35,  Björn Felten <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Question about democ <=-

 DS> I don't know what those courts are like, or what their mandates are --

 BF> But I do. Such matters, how the system works in other 
 BF> countries, are things that we learn in school over here. It 
 BF> obviously gives us an advantage over people that are taught 
 BF> only how the system works in their own country.

It gives you an advantage only if the information becomes relevant.  How
your courts act in Sweden is not relevant to me.
 
 DS> but you obviously don't understand the US Supreme Court and its role in
 DS> American government.

 BF> Oh yes I do. It is you that seemingly do not understand 
 BF> what a constitutional court is and its role.

I know that the US Supreme Court has as its primary function the
judgement of issues based on the US Constitution.  That sure sounds like
a you defined as a constitutional court in your message to me.  If you
want to play Humpty Dumpty and claim that the term means only what you
choose it to mean, no more and no less, then don't expect anyone else to
know what you are talking about.

Lets look at what you wrote in more detail:

 BF> It's important to distinguish between constitutional courts and
 BF> "ordinary"  courts. The former handle violations of the constitution, 
 BF> something that only the government can do (in most 
 BF> countries). The latter handle violations of the law, 
 BF> something that only ordinary citizens and companies can.

The US Supreme court makes judgements of violations of the US
Constitution -- which is what you say a constitutional court does.  In
most situations, it does not handle violations of the law directly -- that
is done by the lower courts.  So by your own words, the US Supreme Court
is not an ordinary court but is a constitutional court.

 BF> has  been explained by several commentators here, it can only
 BF> handle specific cases that has already been handled at a 
 BF> lower level.

And as has been stated here, that is not always the case.  Example would
be Bush vs. Gore, which was discussed.  It is true that the majority of
the cases it hears are referred from the lower courts, but there are
exceptions.

 BF> And it can not revoke any laws,

That is flat out wrong.   If it judges that a law violated the US
Constitution, then that law is revoked.

 BF> it can only
 BF> declare that a certain law can not be applied at this or 
 BF> that specific case.

Its decisions are much broader than specific cases.  Consider the
Miranda decision, Roe vs. Wade, the ruling on laws allowing for separate
but equal education.   I'm sure that a moderate examination of the cases
heard and judgements passed would turn up many examples where as a
result of a US Supreme Court decision, laws were overturned in a much
broader scope a single specific case.

 BF> So basically the US SC is almost
 BF> exactly the same as e.g. the Dutch Hoge Raad or the Swedish 
 BF> Högsta Domstolen; the last level of appeal.

Whether or not that statement is true, I'll leave to some one who knows
and cares what those two courts do and how they act.  But, I say again,
the things you claimed about the US Supreme court are simply false.

                               Dale Shipp
                  fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:16:40, 01 Apr 2010
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)