Yes. Nominate conservatives who can win elections and who will place equally conservative judges on the bench.
Or maybe magic.
We still have a peaceful option to restore the Constitution in Exile. We must give the present federal government the Great Reset, the Three Finger Salute, the Control-Alt-Delete by going through the Constitution word by word with reference to the news of the last 100 years (since 1913), and repair the features that have failed or been compromised.
The power to do this has been in our hands since the beginning if we would only use it. That power is for the States to call a Convention to redefine the federal government.
This is a peaceful option. I am dismayed by how many people seen to think that going 5.56 on the whole mess will be productive and in the end better.
If, for example, we remove from government the power to create money out of thin air and to create infinite perpetual debt, we will force it to live within the means of the moment. The present arrangement enables infinite government through infinite money of its own creation. In the process, we are made debt serfs, having given our assets and encumbered all our future earning via the infinite debt burden we allowed in exchange for “benefits”. Shame on us.
We must put this government on a short leash before it succeeds in making us all grovel before it so we can get our health care. But even today, so-called conservatives will tell the voters how much better they would run the socialist public education system. That is a fine model for how Republican candidates will tell the voters how much better they will administer the Affordable Care Act if only the voters would throw out those profligate Democrats! What fools we must suffer as we watch our liberty be sold for EBT cards.
As I said, we have a peaceful option if only we would take it.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
from Article Five of the United States Constitution
SCOTUS never had an “original limited role”. Ever. Never ever.
Marbury v. Madison
Not without an army of Clarence Thomases on the court. Ever since 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has staked out a position in which “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. In the 1870’s the court eviscerated the rights defined by the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and we all know how the court redefined the commerce clause to include anything and everything, to give the federal government jurisdiction over everything in the 1930’s. the only way to curtail the power of the courts is by filling them with judges who believe in judicial restraint.
• Require the Supreme Court to rule in full adherence to both the letter and spirit of the original Constitution, and face criminal charges for failing to do so.
• Require the Supreme Court to ignore precedent established by rulings from the Woodrow Wilson era onward.
• Require Congress to include the constitutional justification for every item of new legislation. Require the Executive branch and Supreme Court to review each new item of legislation, and report on its constitutionality. If discrepancies arise, they can become the purview of a civilian review board.
• Require that all new laws automatically sunset after a period of five years.
• Require that the federal government be deprived of all power and authority to raise taxes, but may only apply to the states for its funds.
Unfortunately for us, it will probably take the “blood of tyrants and patriots” to straighten out this mess.
Working as intended.
But .... repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start to restoring the U.S to what our founders wanted.
This is the only peaceful way we will ever be free again. Our exact situation is the reason the founders added this option to the constitution. The founders could foresee a day when the federal government would simply refuse to control itself. That time is now.
38 states can and will stop this tyranny. Let Texas lead the way and be state number one!
The way would have been to get Gingrich into the White House.
He was determined to limit the power of the court.
Thanks for your questions on THE NINE SUPREMES.
My question is about the existing legal mechanisms for “ we, the people” to remove a SC justice when his/her ruling violates The US Constitution?
Pass a constitutional amendment EXACTLY defining SCOTUS’s roles and responsibilities, limitations, etc.
Then again, SCOTUS would prolly rule the amendment unconstituional ...
The only way is to pass a Constitutional amendment that would specifically limit the powers of the court, with some type of automatic impeachment clause for any justice that attempts to rule outside of those powers, or judicially invalidate said amendment. Even then, we’d need a Congress willing to enforce that amendment against the Court.
In other words, ain’t going to happen.
I'd like to be able to "shock" Roberts into telling us what was in that briefcase he was holding in front of a bank in Malta.
The only way to fix it is to throw all the bums out of the legislative and executive branches, and to replace them only with people who understand the fundamental moral obligations of their oaths.
Follow that up with impeachments for every single judge who in any way transgresses their own legitimate constitutional powers.
Nothing to it - - it would merely require a President with the guts to say, "I wish to thank the Supreme Court for weighing in on this important issue. It was a 5 - 4 ruling and I happen to agree with the 4 dissenters, and since my job description includes (fill in Constitutional provision here) I will handle the issue in the way I believe is Constitutional and best for the nation. Thank you."
Now, naturally, such a proclamation would bring the mice scurrying out of the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms howling, "Constitutional crisis!", but again, it would require a president with the guts to laugh off the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms.
For example, it would require the OPPOSITE of cowardly (former Florida Governor) Jeb Bush who got stared down by a freaking county probate judge and stood by helplessly wringing his hands as a woman was deliberately murdered by starvation on international television over the course of three excruciating weeks.
“By What Mechanism Can We Return the Supreme Court to Its Original Limited Role? (Vanity) “
Ask the Egyptians...
Bookmark.
Congress has authority over jurisdiction of the supreme court, or lesser courts.
Laws can restrict that jurisdiction, and to the extent that the court improperly decides a case because they are applying an incorrect standard, a law can be passed to define terms so that the incorrect standard (that would otherwise be precedent) is replaced by a different definition.
Or, an amendment can be passed.
For either approach, there is no substitute for winning elections.
