Balance of Power

[joannqn]

Does anyone know...

 

Has there every been a time in American history where the same party was in balance at all levels of federal government? I know there has been times where the presidency, senate, and house were all the same. What I can't find was whether the supreme court during those times was also controlled by that side?

 

And, do you think the original system of checks and balances written into the Constitution still works when one party holds power in all sections of our government (Presidency, Senate, House, Court)? Or does one party holding all the power allow the government to make big changes quickly?

 

Can you point to examples in history to show how it still works or doesn't work?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

. What I can't find was whether the supreme court during those times was also controlled by that side?

 

Probably because the Supreme Court is a non-partisan entity. Next time the State of the Union is on, watch the judges. They don't partake in the party clap fests.

[joannqn]

I know that it is non-partisian. However, there are liberal-leaning judges and conservative-leaning judges. At times, the court has more conservative judges on the bunch than liberal and vice versa.

 

I was wondering if there's every been a time when the President, House, and Senate were all Republican and the court was ruled by a majority of conservative judges. Or the opposite of that with every area being liberal.

[bkpan]

I know that it is non-partisian. However, there are liberal-leaning judges and conservative-leaning judges. At times, the court has more conservative judges on the bunch than liberal and vice versa.

 

I was wondering if there's every been a time when the President, House, and Senate were all Republican and the court was ruled by a majority of conservative judges. Or the opposite of that with every area being liberal.

 

The balance of power is a wider net than what you are questioning. Meaning, that not only do you have the Presidency, House and Senate, but there are regular cycles of elections. So, as you know, there are times when one party has the majority in all sectors, but that is a temporary situation and every elected member STILL answers to all the constituents, not just those of their particular party. And they will be voted out when the voters are unhappy with the direction - as it was recently.

 

There are also term limits for some offices that protect against it.

 

Your lumping the Supreme Court in with the other branches doesn't make sense to me. It IS a non-partisan entity. You really can't label the Court one way or the other - it's too subjective.

 

Kim

[Zelda]

I know that it is non-partisian. However, there are liberal-leaning judges and conservative-leaning judges. At times, the court has more conservative judges on the bunch than liberal and vice versa.

 

 

Very true, political scholars have no issue with referring to certain benches as leaning, slightly or even strongly, one way or the other. And there is no end of hand wringing over how certain presidents will affect the make-up of the bench based on their political philosophy.

[laylamcb]

I agree with you that you usually CAN identify justices as conservative- or liberal-leaning or swing. But one thing that I think is great is that, in general, it seems like the Court rarely gets "out of whack." That is, whatever your OWN leanings, the Court tends to reflect the general populace, which is about 5-4 on controversial issues. Most Americans are just left- or right-of-center. So I like to see that.

 

The other interesting thing that the recently passed bailout bill highlighted is that "Democrat" and "Republican" mean different things to different people. I like to see that, too, since we're stuck with this two-party system. It was refreshing to see swaths of representatives from BOTH parties buck their leadership as if to say, "Yo! You don't speak for ALL of us." Gave me hope. :001_smile: