[Miami Rebel]

I dunno, but the courts have been tempering presidential and congressional indicatives since the beginning of the Republic.

I’m not defending this decision, but the Founding Fathers explicitly designed the system so that appointed judges could hold the other two branches to Constitutional limitations.

[central_va]

BS. Judicial activism started when n the 1960s.

[Starboard]

“the courts have been tempering presidential and congressional indicatives since the beginning of the Republic”

***********

That’s true but are we really a republic (i.e., political power rests with the public) when the courts wield disproportionate power and right now are effectively running the country with sweeping nationwide injunctions, politically influenced decisions, excessive criminal leniency, usurpation of executive authority, and legislating from the bench? Abuses by one branch cannot be justified to prevent abuses by the other two branches of government. I think we’re a long ways away from the system of checks and balances that the Founders had in mind. JMHO

[MinorityRepublican]

I’m not defending this decision, but the Founding Fathers explicitly designed the system so that appointed judges could hold the other two branches to Constitutional limitations.

Eventually the Supreme Court may become too powerful if Congress/POTUS fails to check it.