I believe two basic things about this current court.
They are majority Roman Catholics, and were chosen for this affiliation by those who nominated them.
Women lose body autonomy once they have sex
Humanity is of value only to the mother once born.
They are the result of Wealthy Americans joining with the religious right, both using each other to forward minority views.
Corporations are people
Money is expression of Free Speech
Religious “Freedom” is paramount
Non profits can take political sides
I’m sure there are other examples, but these are a few I have in my debate quiver.
Although laws are enacted by congress and nowhere in the constitution is the power of judicial review granted to SCOTUS, that power has nonetheless been self-granted and used to circumvent the will of the people to the benefit of a few.
I believe the title of judiciary carries with it the responsibility to review and apply laws in a consistent way, in agreement with what the Constitution states.
As such we are bound to see new interpretations from time to time. The problem I see is we have seen two groups to use this interpretation process to push fairly radical positions that establish the rights of the wealthy to use unlimited advertising to lower their taxes, and for a religious minority to push a radical limit to our privacy.
The tactics used to bolster this push to a different interpretation blew up 200 years of precedent. It required overturning any limits to advertising, and crippling the Supreme Court nomination process by eliminating compromise.
While I agree with much of what you say, I have not seen anything that explicitly gives SCOTUS the power of judicial review. The argument might be made that it is implied, but clearly John Marshall established the power of the court to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the constitution. In practice there has to be some degree of review to determine whether or not a lower court may have ruled incorrectly based on a flawed interpretation of the constitutionality of the law in question, etc…
Unfortunately what we are seeing now is the complete politicization of the court, and rather than an arbiter of disputes, it has become an activist body solely for the expediency of the political party which chose the members of the court. As you said this recent practice “blew up 200 years of precedent”.
This third branch has to have powers comparable to the other two branches. As the Marshal court argued, this power includes the ability to rule on all laws. Without this the implied check and balance system rights can be overridden on the whim of political animals and idiots who cannot differentiate between a declaration and a constitution.
I do not believe the powers of the Court had much precedent in history, unlike the Presidency and the Congress, maybe this explains the minimal direction. .
And that would be different than what we have now with a politically activist court?
I think the court was intended to be the weakest branch, but that is just my opinion, and I speculate that the founders knew that un-elected judges would be more difficult to reign in than Congress which is made up of elected members answerable to the electorate. (theoretically)
I don’t necessarily disagree with your argument, just keeping in mind that the whims of the court can be much more devastating given the fact of the lifetime appointments.
The results have been both good and bad i.e. Brown vs Board of Education or Citizens United. Of course the drawback for leaving more power in the hands of Congress is that reigning them in depends on an informed and educated public, and we know that is not the case at this time for sure.
Thanks for making me think about this some more and I will continue to examine the arguments made by either side of this, but I am not optimistic about the outcomes of such a biased Court as exists today.
In a scathing editorial published on May 15, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s editorial board argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has become much too politicized for its own good — and that the likely demise of Roe v. Wade will only cause the public’s view of the institution to erode more.
The Post’s editorial board writes, “The breakdown of U.S. Supreme Court legitimacy may already have begun as the public perception of the Court morphs from one of respectful observances of the law as interpreted by the nation’s top judicial scholars to a view of them as little more than political hacks in black robes…. The Court’s politicization is no longer something justices can hide. The three most recent arrivals to the bench misled members of Congress by indicating they regarded Roe v. Wade as settled law, not to be overturned.”
The judiciary is represented by the courts and has the function of resolving conflicts related to laws. It is completely independent of the legislative and executive powers.
That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is definitely not what is happening today.
Nothing you say goes against my feelings on the problem on the court. They have joined the problem rather than trying to solve it, as good judges try to do.
My point remains, the wealthy joined with the Jesus freaks to get their tax breaks and freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, the Jesus Freaks got their goal of pushing women down to the good old days.
I make it to insure this majority is all RC Jesus Freaks when I discuss it with people.