Is separation of powers in the US system overrated?
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I was on YouTube and found a video of Justice Scalia advocating for the superiority of the U.S. system based on the separation of powers.
Link:
After studying the legal systems of various European countries, I was shocked to find that most operate under parliamentary supremacy rather than a strict separation of powers like the U.S. Great Britain, Germany, France, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark), and Switzerland with its system of direct democracy are all highly developed nations.
In my opinion, they are more advanced than the U.S. in many respects. Furthermore, since Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain are large countries, one cannot dismiss their success based on size alone.
This leads to my question: Is the separation of powers overrated?
Scalia, Barrett, and most conservatives argue that a three-branch separation of powers is the reason for America's success, asserting that the Bill of Rights would be useless without it. However, European examples suggest this isn't necessarily true. Here is what I’ve observed:
The UK maintains true parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can enact any law, and the courts cannot strike it down. Despite having no written constitution or constitutional court, it remains one of the world's most stable democracies with a strong rule of law. For example, when they criminalized hate speech, the courts simply applied the law without opposition.
Germany utilizes a parliamentary system where the executive branch is derived from the legislature. Germany is the world’s fourth-largest economy and is known for excellent governance.
France has a semi-presidential system with limited judicial review. Until 2008, it wasn't even possible to challenge a law's constitutionality after it had been passed. Yet, it remains a major developed nation.
The Nordic countries largely practice parliamentary supremacy, and their courts rarely strike down legislation. Despite this, they consistently rank at the top of global indices for democracy, happiness, low corruption, and quality of life.
Switzerland practices direct democracy, and its courts cannot even review federal statutes for constitutionality. I am fairly certain this would have given the American Founders a stroke.
Meanwhile, the U.S. system seems to suffer from all the downsides of the separation of powers (such as gridlock) without consistently delivering the benefits:
- Judicial Overreach: We have an unelected Supreme Court with life tenure that claims to be the final arbiter of law. In fact, in CASA, Justice Barrett stated that they expect the executive branch to follow the "judgments and opinions" of SCOTUS. This feels like a massive escalation: moving from having no building, to establishing judicial review, to essentially acting as a higher power.
- District Court Decrees: "Venue-shopped" district court judges can issue vacaturs blocking federal policies via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Legislative Inertia: Congress has been "asleep at the wheel" for the last 20–25 years, while the Presidency becomes more powerful every year.
- Partisan Gridlock: Extreme polarization prevents the …
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I was on YouTube and found a video of Justice Scalia advocating for the superiority of the U.S. system based on the separation of powers.
Link:
After studying the legal systems of various European countries, I was shocked to find that most operate under parliamentary supremacy rather than a strict separation of powers like the U.S. Great Britain, Germany, France, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark), and Switzerland with its system of direct democracy are all highly developed nations.
In my opinion, they are more advanced than the U.S. in many respects. Furthermore, since Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain are large countries, one cannot dismiss their success based on size alone.
This leads to my question: Is the separation of powers overrated?
Scalia, Barrett, and most conservatives argue that a three-branch separation of powers is the reason for America's success, asserting that the Bill of Rights would be useless without it. However, European examples suggest this isn't necessarily true. Here is what I’ve observed:
The UK maintains true parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can enact any law, and the courts cannot strike it down. Despite having no written constitution or constitutional court, it remains one of the world's most stable democracies with a strong rule of law. For example, when they criminalized hate speech, the courts simply applied the law without opposition.
Germany utilizes a parliamentary system where the executive branch is derived from the legislature. Germany is the world’s fourth-largest economy and is known for excellent governance.
France has a semi-presidential system with limited judicial review. Until 2008, it wasn't even possible to challenge a law's constitutionality after it had been passed. Yet, it remains a major developed nation.
The Nordic countries largely practice parliamentary supremacy, and their courts rarely strike down legislation. Despite this, they consistently rank at the top of global indices for democracy, happiness, low corruption, and quality of life.
Switzerland practices direct democracy, and its courts cannot even review federal statutes for constitutionality. I am fairly certain this would have given the American Founders a stroke.
Meanwhile, the U.S. system seems to suffer from all the downsides of the separation of powers (such as gridlock) without consistently delivering the benefits:
- Judicial Overreach: We have an unelected Supreme Court with life tenure that claims to be the final arbiter of law. In fact, in CASA, Justice Barrett stated that they expect the executive branch to follow the "judgments and opinions" of SCOTUS. This feels like a massive escalation: moving from having no building, to establishing judicial review, to essentially acting as a higher power.
- District Court Decrees: "Venue-shopped" district court judges can issue vacaturs blocking federal policies via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Legislative Inertia: Congress has been "asleep at the wheel" for the last 20–25 years, while the Presidency becomes more powerful every year.
- Partisan Gridlock: Extreme polarization prevents the …
Is separation of powers in the US system overrated?
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I was on YouTube and found a video of Justice Scalia advocating for the superiority of the U.S. system based on the separation of powers.
Link:
After studying the legal systems of various European countries, I was shocked to find that most operate under parliamentary supremacy rather than a strict separation of powers like the U.S. Great Britain, Germany, France, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark), and Switzerland with its system of direct democracy are all highly developed nations.
In my opinion, they are more advanced than the U.S. in many respects. Furthermore, since Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain are large countries, one cannot dismiss their success based on size alone.
This leads to my question: Is the separation of powers overrated?
Scalia, Barrett, and most conservatives argue that a three-branch separation of powers is the reason for America's success, asserting that the Bill of Rights would be useless without it. However, European examples suggest this isn't necessarily true. Here is what I’ve observed:
The UK maintains true parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can enact any law, and the courts cannot strike it down. Despite having no written constitution or constitutional court, it remains one of the world's most stable democracies with a strong rule of law. For example, when they criminalized hate speech, the courts simply applied the law without opposition.
Germany utilizes a parliamentary system where the executive branch is derived from the legislature. Germany is the world’s fourth-largest economy and is known for excellent governance.
France has a semi-presidential system with limited judicial review. Until 2008, it wasn't even possible to challenge a law's constitutionality after it had been passed. Yet, it remains a major developed nation.
The Nordic countries largely practice parliamentary supremacy, and their courts rarely strike down legislation. Despite this, they consistently rank at the top of global indices for democracy, happiness, low corruption, and quality of life.
Switzerland practices direct democracy, and its courts cannot even review federal statutes for constitutionality. I am fairly certain this would have given the American Founders a stroke.
Meanwhile, the U.S. system seems to suffer from all the downsides of the separation of powers (such as gridlock) without consistently delivering the benefits:
- Judicial Overreach: We have an unelected Supreme Court with life tenure that claims to be the final arbiter of law. In fact, in CASA, Justice Barrett stated that they expect the executive branch to follow the "judgments and opinions" of SCOTUS. This feels like a massive escalation: moving from having no building, to establishing judicial review, to essentially acting as a higher power.
- District Court Decrees: "Venue-shopped" district court judges can issue vacaturs blocking federal policies via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Legislative Inertia: Congress has been "asleep at the wheel" for the last 20–25 years, while the Presidency becomes more powerful every year.
- Partisan Gridlock: Extreme polarization prevents the …
