After decades of decisions like that, they have undermined their legitimcy and earned contempt. The only reason one need now take them seriously is because they can back up their rulings with guns.Absolutely. That's why we have this fight about Miers.
I'm willing to let a truck driver sit in the SCOTUS, as long as he can read the simple language in the US Constitution, rule accordingly, and write in a clear, concise manner.
I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings. I'm supposed to be impressed that some other judge got it wrong; therefore, I must accept their wrong decision.
Harry Browne was quoted as saying his first question to potential SCOTUS nominees would be "Can you read?".
The funny thing is anyone who claims to be a constitutional originalist cannot be confirmed.
Imagine a nominee telling the Senate that they'd roll back the interstate commerce clause to pre-New Deal extents. Imagine how bad they'd be shot down after telling the Senate that they'd have absolutely no powers outside those specifically enumerated in Artice I, Section 8, that 95% of what they do is unconstitutional and they were going to put a stop to it.
I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings.
Agreed. Stare Decisis is a poor substitute for the Constitution. If SCOTUS was in charge of science instead of law, the sun would still revolve around the Earth.