The Supreme Court does not define authority; it interprets the
Constitution.  Like the president and the congress, the Supreme
Court can do only what the Constitution says it can.  I have no
problem with acknowledging that Bush is legally president because
the Court issued that ruling, and, procedurally, they were therefore
ruling that they had that authority.  That does not mean no one can
ever see them as overstepping their bounds.  And of course they
are also subject to impeachment if they ever do.  They could not,
for example, rule that an American could become a duke since that
is forbidden in the Constitution.  They could not rule that
Schwarzenegger could run for president, since he is not a natural
born citizen.  It would require an amendment.  They can only do
what the Constitution allows.

So I am simply differentiating between their authority to interpret
the Constitution and any terms like "supreme authority."  The
House of Representatives, for example "has the sole power of
impeachment," and the members of the Supreme Court "shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour."  So IF the Congress deemed
them to have violated such behaviour and to justify impeachment,
they could.

My point is that checks and balances apply to the Court also.

On 7 Oct 2003, at 17:11, Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Nancy
> Since the Supreme Court is the Supreme legal authority in the United States
> what authority can determine that an action of theirs is illegitimate?
> Rick Seddon
> McIntosh, NM