Actually, your argument is a non sequitur -- because it is based on the assumption that there is some kind of concerted opposition to Roe v. Wade at the Federal level. This is going to disappoint a lot of people, but there is no serious opposition to Roe in the Federal government, despite all the political wrangling on this issue over the years. Contrary to popular belief (and despite what conservative legal experts like Mark Levin have been saying for years), the Roe decision was not the result of some kind of usurpation of the legislative authority of Congress on the part of the Supreme Court. The truth is that in 1973 Congress was perfectly content to let a bunch of unelected judges carry the ball on this issue -- because the Supreme Court has long implemented a social agenda in this country that Congress fully supports but simply doesn't have the b@lls to legislate themselves.
The same holds true today. Both political parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo on the Federal level with regard to abortion -- the Democrats to placate their special interests, and the Republicans to keep the issue as a topic of political discussion (because many conservatives vote for GOP candidates on this issue alone).
Congress has any number of methods at its disposal to deal with a renegade Federal court. The fact that these methods are rarely ever even discussed in Congress tells me that Congress isn't too concerned about these so-called "Men in Black."
For your point to have any merit, we'd have to find a specific case that meets two criteria: 1) it involves a Federal court decision; and 2) it was controversial enough to garner widespread opposition that exposed the court's utter lack of power to enforce its decision.
Ping for some interesting comments.
I agree with that, and I also agree that this is nothing new. Roe was no different than Dred Scott. In the 1850s, Congress was at loggerheads on how to treat the issues surrounding slavery so the Court simply made their decision for them -- a decision that only hastened the national tragedy. The same was true over a century later with Roe.
In a world where elected leaders respected the Constitution congressmen of both sides of the slavery and abortion issues would have joined together and condemned the court for meddling in the political process. Instead, the winners gloat and the losers whine, but neither question why the court stepped into the political realm in the first place.
The fault is with Congress, and ultimately with the people who elect them.
Ping.
FYI, Congress is not "the governed" - you and I and the rest of the citizens are. If the governed in this country had an effective check on judicial arrogance, either Roe would not have happened or it would have been substantially modified as the majority do support limited regulation of abortion and a substantial majority oppose it as a form of birth control. In 1973, opinion was even more sharply against abortion.
Or perhaps you'd prefer a more recent opinion. Let's talk Kelo. Do you doubt that the great majority abhor the concept of government condemning residential areas to line the pockets of fat cat developers? Now, I happen to think that, as a matter of law and precedent, the court had Kelo right. The dissent didn't even make an argument based on law. O'Connor's lament about the decision working to the benefit of the powerful was laughable - the same can be said about *any* government action, shall we prohibit them all?
But I also admit I am very much in the minority. Tell me what effective checks the majority have been able to employ against Kelo.
Also, try to learn what non sequitur means. My argument may be wrong (i.e. the Constitution may, unbeknownst to me, have effective checks on the courts), but being wrong doesn't make it a non sequitur. You posts, on the other hand, are non sequiturs because I was discussing effective checks but you wrote instead about lack of enforcement powers, lack of Congressional concern etc.
In fact, it is curious you don't see that your points support my argument. I'd say it is clear that the court's lack of enforcement power can never be an effective check. We rightfully cherish the rule of law. For the Congress and Executive to arbitrarily ignore court rulings would be a disaster.