JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT: Matt Taylor replies to Mark Tardiff

On the question of creating legislative authority to overturn high court decisions, Mark Tardiff suggests:

[T]he issue to be settled by the legislature should be: Did the court overstep its authority? If the super-majority agreed that it did, the decision would be rendered null ... allowing for the possibility of conscientious legislators who would vote to sustain a decision they disagreed with.

If such legislative oversight were instituted, I agree that the constitution should encourage legislators to defer to the court in all but the most exceptional cases. However, it may be more practical for the legislature to author its own decision, than just to nullify the court's ruling. A substantive explanation from the legislature would supply valuable precedent to future cases, so that courts are more likely to interpret the constitution as the legislators (and the people) intend. Also, it would ensure that the individual case at hand is decisively resolved.
posted by Eve at 1:40 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home