[goldstategop]

The point is this: do we want to be ruled by judges who think they're Gods or will the people be masters of their own destiny. The struggle over judicial review is really a battle over who runs America. I trust the elected representatives of the people to interpret the laws more fairly than I do any judge to do so since in the final analysis, an elected representative remains subject to the people's oversight and is accountable to them for his conduct.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[You Dirty Rats]

I trust the elected representatives of the people to interpret the laws more fairly than I do any judge to do so since in the final analysis, an elected representative remains subject to the people's oversight and is accountable to them for his conduct.

Mob rule worked so well in France in 1794, so let's try it here, eh?

[spunkets]

"I trust the elected representatives of the people to interpret the laws more fairly than I do any judge to do so since in the final analysis, an elected representative remains subject to the people's oversight and is accountable to them for his conduct."

Right. Let's see there's Hillary, Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, ect... The people's oversight sucks.

[FreedomCalls]

I trust the elected representatives of the people to interpret the laws more fairly than I do any judge to do so since in the final analysis, an elected representative remains subject to the people's oversight and is accountable to them for his conduct.

But a representative unconstrained by judicial review would also be unconstrained by the limits placed on him by the Constitution as well. They could simply nullify any election by legislation that didn't go their way.