I think you misunderstand me.
I do not argue that the Supreme Court of the United States is necessarily trampling on the will of the people of America.
I am merely an observer. And I observe that the US Supreme Court is the supreme authority in America.
The decisions this authority hands down seems to anger a great number of Americans I speak with, and some of them lash out and say that the Supreme Court does not possess such power. But clearly it does. It has pronounced today, and therefore, all of those people in that town in the American state of Connecticut will lose their homes, including the very elderly couple who have lived there for 50 years. That couple, deracinated, will surely die from the stress, but the Supreme Court has made the law, and it is absolutely certain that all of these homes will be destroyed. There is no power in America that WILL stop it, and from my observation I do not think there is any lawful authority in America that CAN stop it, other than the local authorities who desire to take the property in the first place.
I ask the question if the Supreme Court OUGHT to be the final authority on everything in America, but the reaction I most often get is a very, very angry blast back that the Supreme Court ISN'T the final, supreme authority in America.
But of course it is!
Look at your history.
The last public official in America to directly overrule the Supreme Court by nullifying an order of the court was President Abraham Lincoln. Not one official in America, at any level, has since dared to do that. A state judge in Florida and people associated with a certain prominent case directly defied a subpoena of the United States Congress with impunity. But nobody ever defies the Supreme Court of the United States.
Not once in 160 years.
That is the supreme power in America, by definition.
Why get angry at me for observing the obvious?
I think that many people who get angry at me do not wish for this to be so. But it is so, and not because I say it is so, but objectively, by looking at American history. Even a stranger can see that.
If American people do not LIKE that state of affairs, it is incumbent upon them to CHANGE them.
In France, Parliament is supreme, but when Parliament passes a stupid law, the people go on general strikes by the millions, and Parliament always caves in and surrenders the point, 100% of the time, because the will of the people, directly expressed by open defiance of the law by the millions, without violence (unless the authorities are stupid enough to send in a few policemen to try and "discipline" a million people, then there would be violence. But the authorities have been smart enough not to have attempted THAT since 1968), cannot be gotten around.
In America, there has never been a general strike over anything. It is not the American way. The residual power theoretically reposes in the People, but the People of America never assert it in a way that overrules the supreme law of the land in America, the Supreme Court. Every year or two the French people go into the streets and casually overrule acts of the supreme law of the land in France, the Parliament.
What is the mechanism to really control the court in America?
Only President Lincoln ever effectively used it.
It is simply ignoring the decision, ordering the Executive branch departments to obey the President and disregard the Supreme Court (and firing or arresting and prosecuting for lawbreaking anyone who obeys the court and disobeys the President on the matter), and then relying on a partisan majority in Congress to prevent there being a majority vote in the US House of Representatives to impeach, or two-thirds of the Senators willing to remove the US President from office.
If the President cannot be removed from office because there is not a political super-majority in the US Congress to impeach and remove him, then the US President has an absolute veto over any decision of the US Supreme Court, by overruling the decision, calling it bad law and a bad interpretation of the Constitution, and directing the executive departments of government to obey him and not the court.
Abraham Lincoln did this effectively.
No President since has.
The check on the Supreme Court is political.
There exists an de facto US Presidential veto of any Supreme Court decision, since the executive departments obey the US President and not the judiciary.
If there is not a political supermajority to remove him: the same majority required to remove a Supreme Court justice, which is never done, then the Presidential veto of the Supreme Court stands.
Well, it would facilitate our communication if you would just frame your position instead of meandering along aimlessly. When I need to organize my thoughts, I like to use numbered items.
1) I certainly do not want the President to ever overrule the Supreme Court by fiat.
2) Nor do I want mob rule.
3) Nor do I want a parliamentary system.
4) Nor do I agree that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority.
So, we are in fundamental disagreement.
The Congress has authority over the supreme court, according to the constitution.
I wish we did have general strike on april 15. That might lower our taxes.
The general strike maybe is not such a bad weapon of the people, though the farmers of france do seem to abuse the strike.