[1stFreedom]

Do you want to take our country back from the courts? Or do you want to have another court full of Republican appointees who won't give it back to us??

It's up to you...

[CyberAnt]

Okay - what is your game plan!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The doctrine of precedent is an invaluable control of judicial discretion. There is a little more to the doctrine than merely one precedent controlling a future similar fact pattern.

I have toyed with the idea, but not thought on it deeply, about giving congress the power to nullify a Supreme Court decision. Say a two thirds majority plus approval by the President. The States, a certain percentage, could void a Supreme Court Decision effecting them. Just a thought.

[chesley]

That would be great, but is most probably impossible. We need to try to put the court under political pressure. Limited terms, for example, but with the ability to be reappointed. Or Congress removing certain areas from the court's jurisdiction. Or the President simply refusing to enforce some court orders.

[hosepipe]

When Congress is hamstrung, the Courts are corrupt and the President is a wimp, a RINO, or worse.. theres only ONE alternative.. And its NOT to adjust some "law", decision or precedent..

Actually if any one of the three has been penetrated.. theres only ONE option.. You know, the one founders gave us, for just so an occurrence.. They could see no other way and niether can I... The 2nd amendment was not given for target practice.. BUT HUNTING...

[planekT]

ping for later.

[varon]

bump

[snowsislander]

My problem with not having judicial review is what should happen when Congress passes yet another unConstitutional law -- wait until Congress repeals the bad law? They don't seem to have much of a history of doing that.

[samm1148]

Amen brother!

[Dog Gone]

Rejecting stare decisis means that every case is a case of first impression.

That there is no established law.

That two identical cases could be decided differently.

That there is nothing predictable about the law or courts at all.

That searching your house with a bulldozer is fine, but merely knocking on my door is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Rejecting stare decisis means that the Rule of Law means nothing.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Judicial review was "created" in Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere in the constitution are the Federal Courts granted Judicial Review. They simply assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Even before Marbury, the Supreme Court understood that it had the power of judicial review. In Hylton v. United States, decided in 1796, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal tax law. The Court upheld the law as constitutional, but none of the justices (who included 3 former members of the Constitutional Convention) thought that they didn't have the power to decide if an Act of Congress was unconstitutional.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

I am for a new amendment to the constitution and I think it would get a lot of support. Since judges have become lawmakers lets give the other lawmakers (congress) an over ride option similar to that they have in overturning a presidential veto. I guarantee that they would have overturned the imminent domain ruling over by now.

[eyespysomething]

Don't know how I missed this.