[Cboldt]

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)?

Can you rephrase that? I don't clearly understand your point or question.

My point is that the Constitutional system of checks and balances necessarily permits SCOTUS to override Congressional law, and Congress to ovverride SCOTUS (via impeachment), and in between, the people intervene via elections.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

My point is that the Constitutional system of checks and balances necessarily permits SCOTUS to override Congressional law, and Congress to ovverride SCOTUS (via impeachment), and in between, the people intervene via elections.

You left out the point you made previously that the President does not have to enforce what the Court says, which is another check. (You however did not complete the analysis by noting that Congress can impeach the President, which is a check on the executive abusing the judicial branch. In essence, it should take two of three branches for any decision and not just one. Since at least one of those branches is always elected, the people retain control. I made this point a dozen times in the Schiavo threads. The Bushes should have intervened directly. They had the backing of Congress and the Florida legislature at least to the point of being impeachment-proof. The opportunity was perfect for setting a precedent that would have broken the Judicial Oligarchy and they blew it.)