The hallowed principle of judicial review: Founded on a purely political act and introduced as a clever gambit, with sacrificial lambs along the way. How much worse are things today?
Only because Congress has lacked the spine to establish the limits to the USSC;s power.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.
Congress may have power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, but they never seem to use it do they?
In reality, people look to the courts as having final say on legislation. Such as the Obamacare lawsuit, or the homosexual marriage lawsuits. In such cases, everyone is looking to the courts to, in effect, set out the public policy in these areas.
In theory, any branch can ignore the other.
True. However if this was a "purely political" power grab by Marshall, he certainly took his time putting it to use.
The second time acts of Congress were declared unconstitutional was in 1857, those prohibiting slavery in territories, in the infamous Dred Scott case, which led directly to the WBTS.
Marshall had been dead for 25 years.
Jefferson would come to deeply regret this extra-constitutional elevation of the judiciary.
True. However, to my knowledge he never put forth an alternate method for settling constitutional issues finally. Peaceful final resolution of strong differences by a mechanism accepted as legitimate is the single most important function of any government. The alternative is civil war.
Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.
Quite so. But they must exercise that power, or it exists only in potentia.
This is why I get so tired of the constant and idiotic blather about "three co-equal branches of government established by the Constitution."
The Constitution did no such thing. Congress is supreme whenever it is united and in the mood to exercise its authority. It has the atomic weapons of impeachment to use against any judge or officer of the government, and it can regulate the powers of the Courts, besides the more "normal" legislative remedies.
It chooses not to use its powers because most congresscritters today are interested primarily in being re-elected. Drastic action to rein in the other two branches of government would almost by definition tick off large segments of the voters and endanger that re-election. Much easier to hand off potentially unpopular decisions to the other two branches.
So it ain't gonna happen. Not because Congress doesn't have the power, but because it refuses to use it.
Arrgghh.
Congress needs to state that marriage is between one man and one woman and that no court can rule otherwise, and solve all this marriage problems.