This part isn't correct:" The justices' interpretation has to be correct since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land."
Anyone who is familiar with the Framers intentions in the Constitution knows that they never wanted judges to have the final word on legislation coming out of Congress. In fact they distrusted the judiciary so much that there was a debate as to whether or not to have one supreme Court over the state's Supreme Courts. They also put the control of the judicial branch under the authority of Congress -- not that Congress ever used it.
It was Chief Justice Marshall who started the process we know today as "Judicial Review" by saying "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." Since Congress backed down on that day we've been hostage to judges ever since. The writer of the article, Leon Friedman, must part of the legal industry who thinks the courts are the ultimate power in government and Congress merely gets in the of judges.
I suggest that you read Article 3 of The Constitution. There you'll find that the Supreme Court "...shall have appellate jurisdiction ...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." In other words the Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court's decisions -- they just don't do it. Congress also has the power to forbid the Supreme Court from hearing certain cases merely by wording their legislation to prevent it.
So, the real problems with an activist court lies in the hands of the Congress who has repeatedly refused to use their constitutional powers to regulate the courts.
Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this.
You're right about that, but Congress' inability to stand up to the courts has been going on for so long that it's become "business as usual" for the Representatives, and Senators, we send to Washington. If the people are ever to control the courts they must first control the Senate.
Thanks for the clarification and thoughts.
Correct me if I am wrong but 'my interpretation' of what you said still tells me that it's not impossible to do, it's just that it hasn't been done. Yet?
Am I wrong?
You said:
"So, the real problems with an activist court lies in the hands of the Congress who has repeatedly refused to use their constitutional powers to regulate the courts."
What if enough pressure is put on them from all sides? Do you think they would refuse then?