[tomder55]

2016 I made this comment here .

Yes the founders knew change was necessary and that is why they set up the amendment process. They would be shocked to see that SCOTUS has seized more than their share of the balance by claiming the authority of 'final arbiter 'which is far more extensive than judicial review . What they have now is judicial supremacy ....judicial tyranny by the unelected ,appointed for life branch of the government ....and that is why the biggest issue in this campaign is who will determine the makeup of the courts .

The Supreme Court (askmehelpdesk.com)

The Dems by packing the court with uber-progressives (and the Repubs selecting squishy moderate conservatives who were more concerned with their place in the DC cocktail circuit than embracing originalism ) were able to bypass the elected branches and impose their agenda via judicial fiat .
co
But then came Trump . He selected and the Senate confirmed 3 originalists Associate members to SCOTUS who more often than not are deciding cases based on the original intent of the framers of Constitution and amendments .

Suddenly the Dems aren't so much in love with Judicial Supremacy .
Suddenly I'm reading what I have expressed here from liberal progressives .

The Case Against Judicial Review - The American Prospect

I propose to attack the problem at the root and abolish judicial review. The Court does not have the sole power to interpret the Constitution, nor the power to strike down any law it choses, and it’s time to say so.
Even fairly hard-bitten progressives are often unsettled by this idea. Most Americans learn in high school civics that the Supreme Court gets final say on whether laws are constitutional, and that this is core to the functioning of the constitutional system.
Yet this view is incomplete. Judicial review does not appear in the Constitution and is not firmly rooted in American tradition. For roughly the first three-quarters of the 19th century and the middle third of the 20th, those powers were heavily circumscribed by tradition and competition from the other branches of government.

................but as far as the Court being able to overturn acts of Congress, the justices arrogated that privilege to themselves in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Though some founders, like Alexander Hamilton, did argue in favor of judicial review, support was by no means unanimous. As historian Michael Kammen explains in A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture, Marbury was highly controversial at the time and remained so for decades, which restricted judicial review in practice. “[It] is not widely appreciated,” Kammen writes, “that the procedure and its supporting doctrine developed gradually, was used sparingly for almost a century, and has never lacked critics who were both harsh and astute: Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, and Van Buren, for example.”
Indeed it was used sparingly until progressives came to power in the late 19th -early 20th century .

Since then we have almost been in a judicial dictatorship .What the court is doing is a correction that was a lon g time coming . Too long by more than a half century.

]Ryan Cooper ,the author of the op ed quotes Lincoln.
'[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Right on ! The progressive court exercised an expansive power of judicial review that permitted them to impose on the country novel interpretations of the Constitution,; remolding the government at will. The presidency and the Congress, have subordinated their power to judicial power by their willing submission to the court's radical rulings.
Why should the court have such unfettered power when example after example has shown they are far from infallible . Activist courts gave us the Dredd Scott decision that led directly to the Civil War. Activist courts gave us the Plessy decision that made segregation legal (The court reversed this in Brown v Board paving the way for Congress to pass civil rights laws based on the Constitution and the 14th amendment ) .Activist Courts imprisoned Japanese Americans without due process simply because they were ethnic Japanese. (The court shamefully did not reverse the Korematsu ruling until Chief Justice Roberts added it to his majority opinion in 'Trump v Hawaii.')
A reading of the Federalist papers shows that even framers who were inclined to support the idea of judicial review were warry of the potential abuse . Alexander Hamilton understood the power of judicial review would be used only sparingly in cases where it was absolutely necessary. He said it would be a usurpation of a judge’s duty to legislate from the bench rather than deciding specific cases that come before the courts.

There are other remedies I suggest that could mute the power of the judiciary Amendments for the repeal of lifetime appointment would be one. Another would be an amendment that gives Congress and the Presidency the power to veto court decisions . But the easiest way that does not take any additional action is for the courts to show the discipline to live withing the limited autority the consitution gave them. Cooper's real beef is that they have begun to do so.