Not exact matches
Trump has harshly criticized the
federal judge in Washington for his decision and a top White House aide on Sunday accused the 9th Circuit
of a «
judicial usurpation
of power.»
According to the standard account
of the matter, the
power of judicial review — that is, the authority
of the
federal judiciary to invalidate acts
of Congress and the President when they are deemed to be unconstitutional — came to be entrenched in our law by the acceptance, tacit or otherwise,
of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1803 case
of Marbury v. Madison.
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.
This vesting clause, along with the Executive and
Judicial Branches deliniates a clear separation
of powers in the
federal government.
Judicial review is the
power of the Court to examine
federal legislation,
federal executive, and all state branches
of government, to decide their constitutionality, and to strike them down if found unconstitutional.
That doctrine, he wrote, permits «executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts
of core
judicial and legislative
power and concentrate
federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution
of the framers» design.
Marbury discerned the
power of judicial review in the
federal constitution in 1803, but no court attempted to find a constitutional definition
of educational adequacy until 1989.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this issue was decided in 1897 by the
Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council when the
federal government challenged upstart Ontario's
power to award QCs.
mere
judicial power, upon the other departments
of this Government and the States
of this Union the recognition
of the existence
of nations and States within the limits
of both, possessing dominion and jurisdiction paramount to the
Federal and State Constitutions.
Todd & Weld filed suit on behalf
of Judge Kendall in
federal court challenging the removal proceedings as unconstitutional on separation
of powers grounds as an illegal encroachment by the legislative and executive branches
of government on the inherent right
of the
judicial branch
of government to monitor and review
judicial conduct.
«The
judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a
Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court
of Australia....»
«This report also discusses the arguments that have been presented by proponents and opponents
of electronic media coverage
of federal court proceedings, including the possible effect on
judicial proceedings, separation
of powers concerns, the purported educational value
of such coverage, and possible security and privacy concerns.
In the
Federal Court system, prothonotaries — full
judicial officers who exercise many
of the
powers and functions
of judges — are employed, at a pay rate
of about 70 per cent
of what superior court judges make.
Texas: bill removes
power of State Commission on
Judicial Conduct to discipline judges who refuse to follow
federal court rulings; claims state judges have free speech right to refuse to obey
federal court rulings
«The Committee's review
of Judge Roberts's writings and public statements, however, has raised concerns about the impact
of Judge Roberts's
judicial philosophy in three broad areas essential to women's rights: (1) the use
of state and
federal power, (2) laws that have a substantial impact on women, and (3)
federal laws intended to protect against discrimination based on sex.»
This being a fundamental law
of the
Federal Government, it rests mainly for its execution, as has been held, on the
judicial power of the Union, and so far as the rendition
of fugitives from labor has become a subject
of judicial action, the
Federal obligation has been faithfully discharged.
The
judicial power of the US is ultimately vested in one Supreme Court pursuant to Article III
of the
federal Constitution.
A sharply divided national
federal judicial discipline committee ruled 3 to 2 in late April that it had no
power to sanction Real, 81, because the chief judge
of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals failed to properly investigate the complaint.
Enforcing limits on the
power of government, as
judicial review does, and perhaps especially enforcing limits set up by
federal constitutions, insofar as they circumscribe the
powers of centralized governments, helps preserve foot - voting and market - choice opportunities.
(a) In enacting § 2
of the
federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the
power of the states to require a
judicial forum for the resolution
of claims that the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.
In enacting § 2
of the
federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the
power of the states to require a
judicial forum for the resolution
of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.
(That doesn't mean they can't hear a case if it falls within the
federal judicial power, but they can only hear it if they have some other source
of authority to do so).
Over the past year I've written about the Emoluments Clause; the No Religious Tests clause; limits on presidential
power as defined in the steel seizure case; the meaning
of the oath
of office; how the Appropriations Clause constrains lawsuit settlements involving the
federal government; how and whether gerrymandering by race and for partisan advantage affects constitutional rights;
judicial independence; the decline and fall
of the Contracts Clause; the application
of Obergefell to issues
of public employees and birth certificates; Article V procedure for calling a new constitutional convention; and too many First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment controversies to list.
The context in which the interaction between the parties is to occur clearly goes beyond that
of «negotiation and mediation pursuant to a «special» process provided under the Act», (57) to a process whereby the State itself appears to usurp the
Federal Court's
judicial power under s 94A, that is, that the State can make a judgment on whether the claimants have established the elements
of s 225.
A judge,
Judicial Registrar, Registrar,
Federal Magistrate or magistrate, who is hearing child - related proceedings in Chambers, has all
of the duties and
powers that a court has under this Division.
(3) To avoid doubt, a judge,
Judicial Registrar, Registrar,
Federal Magistrate or magistrate who exercises a
power under subsection (1) in relation to proceedings is not, merely because
of having exercised the
power, required to disqualify himself or herself from a further hearing
of the proceedings.