Judicial Checks and Balances

Courts can only serve as checks and balances in three things:1. Determining whether an executive action is consistent with legislated law.2. Determining whether a piece of legislature is consistent with a more important piece of legislature (Constitutionality.)3. Determining how two contradictory pieces of legislature are to be interpreted in practice. (A superset of #2.)A court rules on the current state of law. Based on that ruling, the legislature can change the law as it sees fit

Yes. That’s how branches of government are set up. Judicial and legislative branches are supposed to keep the executive branch in check. Judicial branch is right now working to keep things in check but it will take time, resources and money to address every small thing. Opening the floodgates is a good strategy to overwhelm this branch. Which is where the legislative branch comes in. If they see the executive branch over reaching, you act to stop it. But our legislative branch is not acting (on

That's rather tragic. The judiciary can be reigned in one way or the other by the legislature. Ideally, the country should have a strong executive (like the POTUS) who is accountable to the people instead of the legislature.

I think your issue is less with politicians and more with the concept of checks and balances. A system where the executive and legislative branches are constantly at risk of dismissal at the decision of the judicial has massive problems. The government would be basically unable to attempt legislation for emerging situations, because there are often times where there just are not clear judicial standards for how the constitution applies.

You can't forbid judicial review. The supreme court has the ultimate power.

It may be that the supreme court has too much power, but the executive branch actually has executive power, which the court does not. In the meanwhile, the parliament is held hostage by the government, by the power of coalition and party discipline. An evidence for that is the total uniformity in how they vote for the problematic bills in question.

The court is usurping the authority of parliament. Quite unfortunate.

They aren't unaccountable. There are mechanisms and precedents for ignoring the results of the court and for the other branches to manipulate the composition of the court through normal (e.g. nominating and confirming appointees) and extraordinary processes (e.g. increasing or decreasing the size of the court).As an admitted non-American, writing forcefully about a branch of our government that you don't understand, and essentially advocating for dramatic changes to our constitution

The court system has a LOT more checks than one man's whims

SCOTUS wants Congress to do its job of making laws, instead of having an unconstitutional fourth branch of government exercises all the powers of the other three branches. The system of checks and balances you learned in school has become a farce, with agencies making rules with the force of law, prosecuting violators for breaking those rules, and adjudicating those violations in their own administrative court systems.