I'm all for checks and balances. But the constitution does not establish the right of judicial review (that was Marbury v Madison) and certainly never established the right for the court to amend the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.
And yet that's exactly what's been happening in more and more supreme court cases. I'm 100% for three branches and checks and balances. Not at all for Judicial overreach, which I'm seeing more and more of.
Glad they decided correctly today. Who knows what they'll do next week.
We have the Supreme Court because that's what the founding fathers wanted. For your second question, the answer is no I believe. The Supreme Court can only interpret the constitution they can't just make something up.
But who's to stop them if they do? They made up the right to kill babies in the womb. They made up right to let black people be treated 'separate but equal'. Pretty soon they will make up that the 2a doesn't actually mean people are allowed to own guns and that the 1a means that Google may decide what speech is allowed to be spoken and what isn't. They can simply declare that the words on the paper mean whatever they want it to mean.
So how far does it go? Why not just drop the charade and 'interpret' the constitution to mean that we really have a King and his name is Joe Biden? No one would stop them.
I agree with this dude.
The judiciary should only be applying laws decided by elected representatives, but as now the judges are the legislative branch they should be elected every 4 or 6 years.
I'm glad that they ruled correctly here, but can anyone explain to me again why we unquestioningly obey nine un-elected robed demigods?
Does their power have any limits at all, or could they just 'interpret' the constitution to mean that Biden is One True King anytime they want?
The same reason we listen to congress and the President. This is how our country was set up. They are part of the checks and balance of the system.
While not elected, they were appointed and approved by people we elected.
I'm all for checks and balances. But the constitution does not establish the right of judicial review (that was Marbury v Madison) and certainly never established the right for the court to amend the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.
And yet that's exactly what's been happening in more and more supreme court cases. I'm 100% for three branches and checks and balances. Not at all for Judicial overreach, which I'm seeing more and more of.
Glad they decided correctly today. Who knows what they'll do next week.
Fully agree there, and that is where the House has failed us too. They are the only ones that can reign in a Supreme Court justice and they won't.
We have the Supreme Court because that's what the founding fathers wanted. For your second question, the answer is no I believe. The Supreme Court can only interpret the constitution they can't just make something up.
But who's to stop them if they do? They made up the right to kill babies in the womb. They made up right to let black people be treated 'separate but equal'. Pretty soon they will make up that the 2a doesn't actually mean people are allowed to own guns and that the 1a means that Google may decide what speech is allowed to be spoken and what isn't. They can simply declare that the words on the paper mean whatever they want it to mean.
So how far does it go? Why not just drop the charade and 'interpret' the constitution to mean that we really have a King and his name is Joe Biden? No one would stop them.
Like they "interpreted" the right for abortion, eh?
I agree with this dude. The judiciary should only be applying laws decided by elected representatives, but as now the judges are the legislative branch they should be elected every 4 or 6 years.