(December 9, 2015 at 10:54 am)Tiberius Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 1:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Congress includes a phrase in all laws that specifically allow for judicial review. It could simply state that the law is not subject to judicial review and if the President signs it the court can never take a case involving it.
Really? I've never heard of that, can you link to an article which elaborates? Wouldn't that violate the entire concept of "checks and balances" that American government is built upon?
All public laws passed by Congress include a specific clause authorizing court review. If the law doesn't include the clause the court has no jurisdiction.
A typical example:
‘‘SEC. 332. RIGHT OF ACTION.
‘‘(a) RIGHT OF ACTION.—Any person aggrieved by a decision or action of the Association may, after reasonably exhausting avail- able avenues for resolution within the Association, commence a civil action in an appropriate United States district court, and obtain all appropriate relief."
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114pu...4publ1.pdf
Another example:
‘‘(B) Make a judicial determination explaining why, as of the date of the hearing, another planned permanent living arrangement is the best permanency plan for the child and provide compelling reasons why it continues to not be in the best interests of the child to—"
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113pu...ubl183.pdf
A common example of courts having no jurisdiction is when Congress names a post office or another building after one of its buddies. This also includes countless other examples, such as making contributions to certain cops' memorial funds tax exempt while ignoring others. So if your favorite cop was killed while on duty you will have to get Congress to pass a special law to allow for tax exempt contributions for his family. You can't sue for equal treatment based on previous cases.
