[MJY1288]

My whole point is that the SCOTUS is not where laws should be overturned. After all, that is what we are all complaining about in the "Takings" ruling two weeks ago. If that case was debated on the Senate Floor, The debate would have been why it was brought to the floor, not it's merits.

Liberals understand that if they place all their eggs on who sits on the bench, they know they can bypass elections. Nothing they have to offer will ever survive the voting booth, so Tyrants like Kennedy and Schumer will fight to the death over who is on the Bench

[Texas Federalist]

My whole point is that the SCOTUS is not where laws should be overturned. After all, that is what we are all complaining about in the "Takings" ruling two weeks ago.

The takings case was a perfect example of an activist court upholding a legislative enactment. An originalist would have overturned the act of the legislature. My point was the same that Robert Bork made on Hannity & Colmes tonight - that an "activist" should be defined by how he interprets the constitution, not how often he overturns the legislature.

[libstripper]

If it's not where blatantly unconstitutional laws, like CFR, should be overturned, then where should the be? The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, restricts the power of Congress. To enforce the Constitution SCOTUS needs to be able to refuse to enforce monstrosities like CFR.