Why doesn't the US Supreme Court system have neutral judges but have either liberal or conservative, is this the right way to judge things?
What is “neutral”? In other words, how would a “neutral” judge decide cases?If you ask some legal scholars (typically called “conservative”), they’d say that the “neutral” way to decide constitutional cases is to go as closely as possible by the text of the Constitution (because the text is law - any amorphous “principles” were never expressly voted on by anyone and are therefore not law) and to read that text to mean whatever it meant when it was ratified (since, if the force of law derives from common consent, then what the law means should be what people actually thought they were voting on).If you ask others (typically called “liberal”), they’d say that the “neutral” way is to look to the noble principles exemplified in the Constitution’s text, and reach a conclusion that best advances those principles and aims while being maximally “fair” to the parties.All that it means to say that a Justice is “conservative” is that he (or she) sees “neutrality” as meaning the faithful application of the most probable meaning of the text, whether or not it leads to a “good” result. To say that a Justice is “liberal” means only that he or she sees “neutrality” as properly encompassing the question of “what outcome should result in this case?”So, unless you want to amend the Constitution to define which of those approaches is “true” neutrality under the Constitution, then just accept that at least 90% of the time, SCOTUS Justices are “neutral”… according to the definition of “neutral” that their own judicial philosophy mandates.
If congress can override the presidents veto to create laws, then they have the most power?
No, because the legislature cannot override a decision by the judicial branch to overturn an unconstitutional law.
Should there be a single, six year presidential term of office????
When you say "single" do you mean that there would be no possibility of a second term? That would make the president a "lame duck" from the very start. That means that he will be more free to do what he wants without fear of loosing the next election. That could make it easier for him to do what's right, rather than what's politically popular at the time. Of course that could also make it easier for him to not care what the people want. We'd be stuck with a bad president for longer. Or, we'd have a good president who didn't have to answer to money interests and worry about loosing the next campaign...