Judiciary

What role does the judiciary system play in supporting freedom?  The answer is they are supposed check and make sure that laws passed do not violate the Constitution of the United States.

I have problems understanding how the judiciary works, the whole system really.  I have a hard time understanding why some cases get picked up by the Supreme Court and why others don’t.  I guess I can understand this to a point.  If everybody could appeal their cases to the Supreme Court then why would we need all the other Federal courts?  I guess I would just like to see how or understand how the Supreme Court picks which cases it will or will not hear.

Another problem that I have, or don’t understand, is why is it that the Supreme Court does not conduct an overview or the laws that are being passed by Congress.  The way that I understand this process is that a person or persons or a state have to file suit in court to challenge the law.  It then has to work itself through the court system, many times taking years to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court, for the few that get lucky and have their cases heard.  It just seems like a lot of money gets wasted.  Would it not be easier for the Supreme Court to make sure that legislation being passed in legal in the first place?

Take the current Health Care Law that was passed back in 2010, shortly after it was signed into law States started to sue the Federal government claiming the law was illegal.  There are now 26 States involved in the suit.  The last I heard, two judges had ruled the law illegal and one judge had sided with the Federal government.  One judge in Florida had struck the whole law down because it forces the citizens to purchase Health Insurance.  So what to do now?  Does the Obama Administration continue to implement this law, while they file appeal after appeal just waiting for the case to reach the Supreme Court or should the stop implementing it and wait for a decision from the Supreme Court on this matter?  Would it not have been easier to have the Supreme Court review it in the first place, before it became law, and tell congress what is and what is not legal?  I believe it would have been.

This leads me to another problem with the Judiciary or Judges.  The book covers this a little bit, but do the Judges really have any power to enforce the rulings they strike down?  I can use the Health Care example on this again, one judge said the law is illegal yet he has zero power to enforce that ruling.  The judge has to rely on Federal Government to follow his ruling.

To take this a step further, let’s assume that the Health Care Law has reached Supreme Court and the Court has ruled the law to be illegal, as it should.  The Court then has to rely on the Federal Government to implement the decision.  What if the current administration decided they were not going to listen to the Supreme Court and just continued to implement the law?  What power does the Supreme Court then have to enforce their decision?

One last thing that I completely do not understand is how two judges or three or four or more, can look at the same case and come up with one or two or three or more different decisions.  This is one that I really need help understanding.