sporting,
in a way he did answer your question.
SCOTUS is there to rule on the Constitutionality of actions by the Congress and the Executive branches. Checks and balances, pretty good design so far in our history, perhaps flawed at times, but better than a monarchy/oligarchy, no?
Would it be OK if the CIC didn't like men with black hair, freckles, and blue eyes (an Irishman perhaps) and refused to allow them to serve? The Supremes would likely overrule that command.
Geno
Perhaps you could illustrate your point with a quote from the Constitution.
Please don't cite the Marbury v Madison decision.
It appears to me that the Court has usurped power they were never intended to possess.
Well, for one thing the Executive branch asked the Court to look into the matter:
from the article you posted
The Trump administration first petitioned the Supreme Court to decide directly on the legality of the trans-soldiers ban, after federal trial judges in California, Washington, D.C., and Washington state issued orders prohibiting its enforcement. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits argue the policy violates a range of constitutional rights including the First Amendment, equal protection, and due process.
(my bold)
Notwithstanding the Constitution:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiiiSection 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
(my bold)
Now, granted I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the wording in those items I quoted seem to lead me to believe that first, Article III gives the Court broad jurisdiction, and second, that the Executive Branch, in this case, requested the Court to review
this case.
In other cases have they usurped power? Perhaps.
This case? It doesn't appear so.
Geno
