- Reaction score
- 18,159
- Points
- 1,160
Legislatures and courts are not opposing members of debating societies. Legislatures make laws. Courts are there to adjudicate between parties one of whom might be the executive acting in a way that they think is in accordance with the law. It's important to note that legislatures do not appear in court, its either private parties or government executives who are administering the law who generally appear in court to argue how the law is to be interpreted.
Sometimes courts say that the executive is not following the law. Sometimes the courts go so far as to say the law itself is unconstitutional. Once the court rules, the debate is done and the decision stands unless or until overturned on appeal. In the meantime, the ruling stands and must be obeyed unless that court or a higher court stays the ruling pending appeal.
If the nation's highest court does find the executive is acting outside the law then the only remedy that the executive has is to convince the legislature to change the law in a way that it likes. When a law is found unconstitutional then again, the legislature has the right to change the law in a way that is constitutional, and, in an extreme case, change the constitution (or in our case use a notwithstanding provision)
There is no "unanswered question" about "how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent." A court's very purpose is to interpret the law as written and to fill in the blanks where the law is vague. There is a vast body of law on statutory interpretation to assist the courts in this process. The power of the courts are derived from Article III of the US Constitution as augmented by the very laws passed by Congress.
Just a quick comment on "ridiculous behaviour from a few Ideologically-motivated judges." That cuts both ways. I personally find it amusing how some people think that only judges with an ideology opposed to theirs are the ridiculous ones. The profession is not: "only as strong as its weakest members." Quite the opposite, here and even in the US, the profession is strong despite its weakest members. It's the parties with the weakest arguments that try to demean or tear down those who decide against them.
