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?
No, no,...you're right. It hasn't been done in the past, isn't being done in the present, and for all we know may never be done at all. Why the Congress has willingly forsaken its authority over the judiciary is a mystery I've yet to understand.
What if enough pressure is put on them from all sides? Do you think they would refuse then?
From all sides? Then they would probably do something about the judiciary, but that's an awful lot of pressure to make the Congress do what it's mandated to do in the first place, don't you think? Remember to ask your congressman his views on our activist judiciary the next time he's up for election. See if his words match his voting record.
The wonderful thing about our Constitution is its "readability". The Framers left us a document that anyone can read and make sense of. All any judge does is "interpret" the words in that document, and that interpretation changes from one judge to another over the years. You can do your own interpretation by reading the original words of the framers, and get the intent behind those words. Once you understand the Framer's intentions you can accurately asset any ruling that comes out of the judicial branch.