[tomder55]

Nope ;as I've said before ,SCOTUS undermined the system with the Marbury v Madison decision. So as Jefferson said.. future events were predictable . In so many cases ,their decsion has left significant populations in this country embittered ;chiefly because SCOTUS by-passes the representative process. Too frequently they have made wrong calls in affirming bad law, reversing good law;and most importantly ,imposing remedies that they deem are needed. Nothing granted them that much power.

[paraclete]

They're is nothing else for it Tom a new revolution and a new constitution

[TUT317]

Nope

Is that a no to my idea that we can't place ourselves in a privileged position when it comes to judging events we are historically connected?

No to the idea that it is bad methodology to judge events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were in the past?

Tom, you more than likely adhering to the fallacy of presentism (yes there really is such a fallacy).
It's the idea that we can supply an accurate analysis of past events by way of present day ideas and perspectives.



Tut

[tomder55]

By quoting Jefferson's observation about the Marbury decision I was giving you the perspective of a contemporary of John Marshall's in the era the decision was made. The fact that his predictions were spot on then and now validates his thoughts.

[TUT317]

By quoting Jefferson's observation about the Marbury decision I was giving you the perspective of a contemporary of John Marshall's in the era the decision was made. The fact that his predictions were spot on then and now validates his thoughts.

What does this have to do with anything? Even I could have made such a prediction for the time and further into the future Three brances of government each assigned and equal role in governance. One branch discovers that it can legislate to increase it's own power and influence.

You are trying to tell me this is a spot on prediction? Give me an instance in the history of Western civilization whereby some governing body hasn't sort to increase it's power and influence in a system that lacks adequacy. You don't need a crystal ball to predict that.

Tut

[tomder55]

The Judiciary should be the weakest of the co-equal branches. It neither controls the purse or the enforcement instruments. The fact that they have seized so much power in anti-constitutional . The ant-Federalist 'Brutus' also warned against this possibility and suggested that the Brit system that judicial decisions can be overturned by the legislature was a better system. I won't go that far because our legislature has had some bone head calls too. But perhaps a veto system would've provided a better check against the Judiciary power grab.

[smearcase]

The justice who casts the fifth vote is as close to having a king as it gets in the US. If the intention was to have legal experts ensure that the constitution was being correctly interpreted (I admit that I don't know if that was the intention but it should be) it still comes down to an individual or a few making the crucial decisions. Government by the people is a false promise under those circumstances. Maybe the prez, House, and Senate should be allowed to veto decisions if two of the three entities vote or decide to do so.
Or would any such measures turn the present near gridlock into total gridlock? And if the House voted against the supreme court decision while the Senate and Prez accepted it-- does that again leave the people out of the decision inasmuch as some say that the Senate represents the states and not the people?
Let the House make the first stab at constitutionality (isn't that already considered with any bill- if not, it should be) of any proposed bill or current law, and if the bill survives the process, enact it like any other. Give the supremes a small office in the Capitol and let them give their advice by testifying upfront instead of second-guessing on the back end. Would help the budget too. Elect the justices for 6 years max and let the people make the decisions like they are supposed to.
I know-- try amending the constitution for all or any of the above.

[paraclete]

Your justices are appointed for a term which cannot be terminated because the government has changed. This is important to preserve their independence and recognises that the handling of cases takes time and should not be interrupted by the political cycle. Having judges elected politicises the office.

The idea that they have usurped power is because they have made unpopular decisions, but they operate within constrained paramaters, whether a law or an act is constitutional, they do not write the laws.

The House and the Senate can vote against a Supreme Court decision by enacting a law and that law can be referred to the court and they can do it by having a referendum to amend the constitution.

The structure was set up for a reason, to check the power of each branch of government and avoid the possibility of a king arising. Events have moved a long way in two hundred years and those who draft and propose laws have pushed the boundries and every now and again someone must push back. Ultimately the court is guardian of liberty when the political process fails in this regard