The real check we have over the Supreme Court is the Constitution itself, particularly through an amendment process. But that process is so long, it’s not very effective against awful decisions. And how would we propose an amendment to counter the Kelo case? The existing wording is clear enough. Impeachment is really the correct path there.

I’ve had the thought of some kind of supermajority of Congress overturning a court decision. I’m not sure about it. I think the rules would have to get complex, to make sure that Congress couldn’t just get away with whatever it wanted. You’re right that the way the framers set it up, things should get straightened out in the end. But we’re still living with the awful interpretations of the commerce clause (which is what gives the federal government it’s current immense power — the framers would be immensely against the “department of education”, for example), and that’s going on 100 years. At some point, I think the “reset” button will have to be pressed, and we’ll have a revolution that will put the federal government back in its original place — handling foreign affairs (including defense), resolving disputes between the states, and handling currency. All it would take would be having the states call a constitutional convention, and they could recommend any changes they wanted… and then the states would ratify it. That would be SO cool.

For a historical example, FDR would have been able to completely remake the court so that there would have been no challenge whatsoever to his socialization of America. The fact that there was a very conservative court through the 1930’s, appointed by the Republican presidents over the three previous terms, actually limited FDR’s socialist ideas and got rid of much of his extreme legislation.

For a hypothetical example, the Court is now largely conservative, which scares liberals to the core of their beings since they view the Federal courts as their greatest ally in furthering their extremist agenda. Now lets say that there is a way to easily remove or “check” the Court other than what the Founders intended. Now let’s say that Hillary Clinton gets elected. Now that there is a conservative court, do we want that her to have that power? Or lets say that the House and Senate are controlled by Democrats in two or four years. Do we want them to have that ability, too?

I think that the system has largely worked. Conservatism has won elections. The will of the people has spoken. The Republicans have control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. There is now a conservative court that will last for a generation. Believe me, a liberal Congress or a liberal President will have fits with them in the future. Praise God.

Bill Clinton won elections. He got to appoint Communist, extremist, liberal activist judges. That’s his job and the spoils of victory, just as Bush has had his. It was actually one of the major reasons I voted for Bush, since I knew that at least one if not as many as three would die or retire during his next term. There are still a couple liberal judges that are hanging on until a Democrat comes into office, if they can wait that long.

This isn’t even including all the Federal judges that Bush has appointed. He’s changed more than we can see right now, but will, like I said, influence a generation. It will be interesting to see what will happen if another Republican gets elected.

I would say, with the power of judicial review and the way its been used in the past, one check that might be added would be something similar to a veto situation. Where if the Congress votes and gets 75% approval on a law, then they can overturn a decision by the Court to declare something unconstitutional. This would rule out some of the major activism and require support from both parties in order to overturn a decision by the court. This would put legislation more firmly in the hands of the legislature, as well, which is the reason for the power to overturn a veto.

There have been presidents who have made pretty dumb decisions that took years to either correct or address. Its become a much more powerful position than the Founders intended. Do we put more limits on his power, too? The liberals would love that. They’d vote for it.

Again, I think that the system has worked. It could be improved, but overall, its working. We just need to be dilligent to be educated about what the different branches are doing and vote according to our conscience.

Peace.

The problem is that, unfortunately, the major allies of the Civil Rights Movement happened to be activist federal judges back in the 50’s and 60’s. And despite the need for change, this gave those progressives and the modern progressives the faulty idea that the Supreme Court should be an activist court in all cases and situations for all progressive causes.

Can you imagine if the liberals fought for our rights to have guns the way they fight for abortion rights? Micah would already own a gun, provided by the government, and they’d be teaching him how to use it.

One of the reasons that we have the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves against an oppressive government … and that is exactly why the liberals are all too eager to take them away.

Peace.