[Cboldt]

That is flawed thinking. *ANY* "final authority" is a dictator. In a representative democracy everything should be open to eternal debate by the people and their representatives.

The thinking isn't flawed at all. The degree of action and reaction is meant to be measured and "timed" (easier to unelect a president, harder -- but not unreasonable -- to impeach a judge for political reasons).

Eternal debate is always settled, eventually, by force or threat of force.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Then why did everything else you wrote argue (correctly) AGAINST a final authority by arguing (correctly) for executive nullification a la Andrew Jackson in Worcester v Georgia (1832)?