"Unfortunately, I fear it is going to get worse long before it gets better. With the left unable to win at the ballot boxes, and judges willing to enact policy from the bench, the battle for the control of the courtroom could get intense."
Interesting.
You appear to think that the problem lies with the judges, not with the constitutional structure itself. You acknowledge, tacitly, that the Supreme Court ought to have such power as it does; you see the battle as one of making sure the right judges are there so that they don't use that power in ways you think are inappropriate.
I think that the problem lies with the American constitutional structure itself. It does not seem to me that the solution lies in trying to somehow find 9 incorruptible men who, once in the position of final arbiter and creator of law in America, will use such powers only for the benevolent ends of those who originally appointed them (but cannot remove them).
It seems to me that the solution lies in changing the US Constitutional structure so that the courts cannot overturn laws passed by Congress, giving the elected branches the supreme authority which cannot be challenged by anybody.
Somewhere, that supreme authority lies.
In America, currently it lies in the Supreme Court, where 5 unelected, lifetime officials can establish any law as the supreme law.
I think that the supreme authority ought to lie in the 535 elected members of the US Congress, who serve relatively short terms and can be held accountable by the democracy.
But such a change would be fundamental. It would require a different constitution than the one America has. Americans would have to opt for a constitutional convention, such as the US constitution allows, and formulate a new constitution which would remove supreme authority from the judiciary and place it either in the legislature or, perhaps, the executive, depending on American choices.
That would be radical, and I have no sense that Americans connect the bad laws that come from the US Supreme Court with a flaw in the American Constitution itself.
Well, the problem with making assumptions is that you tend to make an ass out of both "U" and Umption. I do not for a minute think that judges should have the power that they have simply assumed over the years, to the point where they are in fact both legislature and judiciary rolled into one.
As for changing the constitution, I do not think that is necesscary, as the power that the court has assumed, (the power to tell the other branches of the federal government when they have violated the constitution) is not contained in the constitution we have now.
Also, when I speak of the battle for the courtroom, I am talking about one side that wants to use the court to rewrite the constitution on a daily basis, and one side that simply wants judges to act like referees, applying the law as written, whether they agree with it or not. I am not talking about packing the court with judges that would do for conservatives what liberal judges now do for the left (enact policy that they could never get passed at the ballot box.)
And if I want someone to tell me what I really meant, in spite of the plain language of what I said, I'll ask my wife ... or a liberal judge.
Not all of us do.
There is NOTHING wrong with the Constitution, it is beautiful in it's simplicity.
The problem is with the black-robed bastards that decided THEY have the authority to 'interpret' it, and REFUSE to uphold the principles on which it was founded!