... when Texas executes one of them.

count on it!

The balance of power is totally out of whack. The POTUS can override Congress with the veto or just not "enthusiastically" enforcing laws (GW Bush), Congress can override the President's veto. These are not hard to do. But once the SCOTUS makes a decision, it is very hard to over turn.

and dog those all the way trying to shake them loose just like they do. You think without some kind of deep cover operation or a random turnabout that we could even nominate someone as left wing as even Kennedy is right, much less a Scalia or an Alito? No fucking way, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be heard through the vacuum of space.

We have ceded the courts to the extremists who do not share our values and worship Mammon. These men are pretty much open global corporate fascists. Of course they swore oaths and told lies but let's get real, nobody is blown off the plate that we have a crew of Arch Conservatives, at the bare minimum.

The lower levels are probably worse on average and the situation is like this not from a structural defect but from operator error on the part of Democrats. It is not permissible to allow the opposition to stack extremist while we go with very moderate.

I begged my Sen Murray and Cantwell to vote no. Cantwell ignored me (not surprising) and Murray said she thought the President should have his pick.

Extremist should be countered with extreme objections.

Marshall said it is the Court's job to "say what the law is." That has been the law of the land for two centuries.

If the Court were something other than a bunch of partisan hacks (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, et al.) they would do their damn job.

This is why elections matter. This is why it is paramount that we re-elect President Obama.

NOW GET BUSY!

Bake

on himself to make that decision.

Imagine what happens with three perfectly co-equal branches. Congress and the Prez decide to pass a law that is patently unconstitutional. Should they be able to do it?

Somebody has to be the final arbiter, whether the Founders envisioned it or not. And like it or not, that somebody is SCOTUS.

Bake

They can remove Congress members and the President fairly easily if the citizens think they are passing unconstitutional laws. And the laws can be changed. But if the SCOTUS establishes a law (interprets) then the citizens are pretty much helpless. Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get passes. And the hands of the President and Congress are tied.

As far as "patently unconstitutional", there really isnt such a thing. Constitutionality (since Marshall) is determined by the SCOTUS and can change as Citizens United proved. They reversed precedent.

John Marshall (and his court) took it upon himself, without Congress and without the President and without the citizens, to assign the SCOTUS as the final arbiter. It isnt in the Constitution. So in my opinion, the decision to make the SCOTUS as final arbiter is unconstitutional.

And dont think the Founders hadnt thought of this. They purposely restricted the SCOTUS very severly.

The Civil Rights Act would have been unconstitutional according to the majority, just for example.

Bake

I do not advocate for a direct democracy but a constitutionally controlled democratic republic like the Constitution sets up. The Civil Rights Act is a great example how the system should work as set up by our Founders. The law was written and passed by representatives acting on behalf of citizens. The law was signed by the President acting on behalf of the citizens. Had the citizens objected they could have at least tried to persuade Congress and the President not to pass the law. And if unsuccessful they could have elected representatives that would change the law. This law got passed without any help of the SCOTUS. However, a conservative activist court could have or actually still can deem this law unconstitutional as they recently did with the McCain-Feingold Bill.

The Constitution does not allow the SCOTUS the judicial review authority and the decision to give them that authority was not given by either Congress, the President or the citizens. They gave themselves that authority. I think Citizen's United is the tip of the conservative, activist SCOTUS iceberg.