Everyone is so focused on who the President picks for the Supreme Court because we, as a people, have abdicated too much responsibility to the third branch of government. We have allowed five black robed masters to conform the nation's morality to Harvard and Yale instead of letting the gradual, democratic processes that move in various directions chart our moral course. We have allowed courts to decide matters best left to elected officials. We have allowed Congress and the President to pass the buck to the Supreme Court to take care of issues. We have allowed judges to be viewed as arbiters of our future, not just the law. We have given too much importance to the Supreme Court and the founders of this nation would be dismayed.
IMHO Judicial Supremacy is unconstitutional. We have an oligarchy of unelected life-time judges/justices who overturn laws voted by the people & their reps. The SCOTUS writes the laws now. The Executive bows to the Oligarchs, letting them review & overturn decisions on national security & homeland defense. We have a judge trying to micromanage treatment of criminals who invade the USA.
Term limits & recall elections are needed. If Congress should pass an Act of Legislation from the Bench, the offending judges should be put up for recall election & the decision vacated.
The President (in making an Exec Order on national security to stop invasion) should add "This Exec Order as pertaining to national security, shall not be reviewable by any court. No US Marshal shall aid any judge or court in such a review, nor in serving papers, nor in attempting to enforce any court order pertaining to this Exec Order. Moreover, no US Marshal shall in any case serve any paper on the Executive nor attempt to enforce any court order vs the Executive without prior approval from the president..
Here is an example of the kind of "thinking" that would influence someone wanting to overturn a SCOTUS ruling: "The "originalist" view of the Constitution would have us define a person--a citizen--in the same exact way Jefferson or Washington would have, which is indisputably a delivered baby."
"Indisputably"? Says who? There is nothing to indicate this, but @Paul C, the abortionist's best friend, claims it is so and would no doubt base a vote on it.
@AJ_Liberty tried to address a comment:
"@Paul C : "The Supreme Court will potentially, in the coming months and years, define what a human being is"
Anything of this magnitude requires a Constitutional amendment or else you are simply letting 9 unelected and unanswerable citizens become our rulers. "
This is correct. @Paul C is not only passionately dedicated to protecting abortion, he is steadfastly obdurate in his conviction that the Court can just declare something out of thin air and make it law. It's been explained to him dozens of times but he doesn't care and just persists in his folly.
I'd also like to point out that the way the Court has been acting in the past, the lives of the entire country have been decided by only FIVE unelected political appointees.
@HDA, I like the general attitude of your suggestions, but don't think they would work. The whole idea of a Supreme Court in the first place is to put that level of the judiciary out of the reach of popularity or current movements. My suggestion is just to have Congress legislate that all office holders must take a specific oath of office (they already do) and make that oath of office binding.
That is, make the oath of office a contract with the people, that the person taking the oath will uphold the law and uphold and defend the Constitution. I don't think that is asking too much. A violation of the oath would result in loss of the position and its related benefits.
So a sheriff/mayor/governor flouting federal law regarding illegal immigration would simply lose his or her job and pension. A legislator voting for a bill that did not pass Constitutional muster would no longer be a legislator, with all the benefits that position carries with it.
There would be chaos for a while, in the areas where arguments can be made, but in some areas, such as creating sanctuary cities or states or refusing to prosecute crimes it would be clearer. At least people would stop and consider the consequences of rash acts designed to support a political or personal agenda, and I think that would be a good thing.
No way should voters be able to overturn a SCOTUS decision. Why even have Supreme Court if its rulings are then going to be subject to popular opinion? Particularly when, as we constantly see, popular opinion is so often devoid of actual knowledge or understanding. One of the shrillest voices on this forum is convinced that there is no such thing as "leftism" that people who use the word are just "weird" and that the concerns about what he dismissed as mere "technicalities" about Roe are too superficial to require revisiting it.
No, at this level we have to have people who are, at least, educated. They have to know the law, have at least studied the Constitution, have a background in arguing the law, and experience in discussing matters based on objective facts. Supreme Court rulings reference prior rulings and writings. Putting an ignorant and biased and often bigoted populace in the position to overturn rulings they don't even begin to understand would be disastrous. Just look at all the people who think Roe legalized abortion.
Erickson is right, but we are where we are.
I don't believe this issue - when life begins, will truly ever be ruled on by the Supreme Court. How about if a woman truly wanted to carry her baby to term, and some thug came along, attacked her, and killed her "baby." It is a baby, no matter what you say. The zygote, fetus, etc., turns into a baby unless you end its life, or it is miscarried. It does not turn into a tomato. The leftists in this country have used the Supreme Court to get its agenda passed, as the American people, as a whole, do not support all of what they are trying to "accomplish." And to @2.civil who is masquerading as Jules, a truly gifted writer, please go back to the cave you crawled out from. Gosh, people should be able to agree to disagree without all the nonsense and name-calling.