Sentences with phrase «judicial supremacy»

If the Supreme Court were to act thus it would be asserting an authority over Parliament that is flatly ruled out by our constitutional tradition: an assertion of judicial supremacy of this kind would be a coup not a judgment.

It was that the decision threatened to undermine the basic principles of republican government precisely by establishing judicial supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation.

I would resist Mr. Ingraham's characterization of Lincoln's powerful critique of judicial supremacy as mere «musings» on the subject; but there is no denying that the doctrine condemned by the Great Emancipator has, in fact, prevailed in the legal profession and with the public at large.

In office, Lincoln gave effect to his position against judicial supremacy by consistently refusing to treat the Dred Scott decision as creating a rule of law binding on the executive branch.

And one can not accept modern notions of judicial supremacy without rejecting everything Lincoln stood for and did as president.

Even if legitimate, moreover, judicial supremacy inhibits, rather than promotes, general moral discourse about community values and aspirations.

But none can say that he had not made his opposition to judicial supremacy clear before assuming office.

It is ironic that the declaration of judicial supremacy made by the Warren Court came in the context of the Court's efforts to enforce a ruling in the cause of racial equality and civil rights.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie called the DOMA decision «just another example of judicial supremacy rather than having a government run by the people we actually vote for.»

But Clause 18 of the EU Bill is not a «sovereignty clause» and it would clearly undermine parliamentary sovereignty, by encouraging judicial supremacy.

Tagged with: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Charter values Chief Justice Joyal constitutional supremacy institutions judicial supremacy parliamentary supremacy section 7

«Warren - style judicial supremacy did not start with Marbury v. Madison, which was a decision of relatively limited reach.

The prime example of pre-Warren judicial supremacy was Dred Scott v. Sanford, which the liberals don't like to talk about because it is so embarrassing.

Tocqueville's thesis affects just how much judicial supremacy we get in a judicial - departmentalist scheme.

In Jefferson's letter of September 28, 1820 to William C. Jarvis, from which I quoted earlier his line about judicial «despotism,» he explained his opposition to judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation as follows:

Lincoln, in contrast, viewed judicial activism as illegitimate, judicial precedent as problematic, and judicial supremacy as despotic.

Supporters of the right to abortion who criticize the German decision make exactly the same arguments — the same Lincolnian arguments — against judicial supremacy that supporters of the right to life who criticize Roe v. Wade make.

What we object to is, first, the judicial manufacture of constitutional law to displace without constitutional warrant the duly enacted judgments of the people and their elected representatives, and, second, the idea of judicial supremacy that treats the executive and legislative branches of the federal government as impotent to do anything but bow down before unconstitutional exercises of judicial power, however blatant and destructive of the constitutional order.

A standard argument advanced by partisans of judicial supremacy is that the only alternative to tolerating the unrestrained judicial usurpation of democratic legislative authority is «legal anarchy.»

Permit me a final word about the Lincolnian rejection of judicial supremacy.

It provides a good warning to conservatives against falling into the trap of defending the idea of «judicial supremacy» in their critique of the president's statement about a «group» of unelected people striking down a congressional law.

It provides a good warning to conservatives against falling into the trap of defending the idea of «judicial supremacy» in their critique of the president's statement about a «group» of unelected people striking down....

On the contrary, it is entirely in line with his own fears of the political consequences of judicial supremacy.

The idea of judicial supremacy — or the idea that the supremacy of the Constitution entails judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation — has come to be so widely held not only in the legal profession but also by the public at large that today it seems unremarkable.

The occasion for Lincoln's declaration of implacable opposition to judicial supremacy had been a decision which, above all others, stained the Court's reputation as an institution dedicated to, as it says above the entrance to the Marble Temple in Washington, D.C., «equal justice under law.»

What I described as a «remarkable» claim to judicial supremacy, the Cooper Justices presented as nothing more than a straightforward, uncontroversial, altogether mundane and logical implication of Marshall's proposition about the «province and duty of the judicial department.»

Mike Huckabee closed his keynote on the «curse» of «judicial supremacy» with an extended quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham City Jail.

If so, should one's view of the proper scope of judicial power, and the legitimacy of judicial supremacy, depend upon the contingent fact that the Court happened to come down the way it did on abortion?

An historic aspect of the issue of judicial supremacy was the extent to which legislative judgment would be