Title: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy | Policy Interns
Headings: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Like
Cancel reply

Content: In the 2004 case Rasul v. Bush, the Court ruled the U.S. court system does have the authority to determine if foreign nationals were wrongfully detained, despite claims to the contrary by the Bush administration. Two other Bush-era cases also demonstrate the power of the judicial branch. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled U.S. citizens have the right to challenge their status as an enemy combatant in court and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Court ruled the Bush administration’s use of military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional. Supreme Court rulings do not allow for wiggle room, unlike actions taken by Congress. The executive branch must abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court, even if the administration in power disagrees with a particular ruling. Thus, the judicial court is indeed the one true restraint on the executive, which is ironic considering it was a justice’s statement that provided a legal precedent for the executive branch to centralize foreign policy power and take unilateral action without congressional consent. Like this: Like
Loading...
Like
One blogger likes this. Cancel reply
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email (Address never made public)
Name
Website
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. (