[RepublicanPatriot]

I don't follow your argument re life tenure for SC justices.

The purpose of life tenure was to insulate the justices from political pressures so they could make proper, sober legal decisions. It was not to give them license to act beyond the scope of their constitutional authority or to "interpret" the Constitution and federal law according to their personal political preferences. The Framers did not intend for bad decisions to go unchecked for decades, until "better" justices could be appointed to the Court.

The great flaw in the constitutional scheme adopted by the Framers is precisely the lack of any meaningful institutional check on the Supreme Court's behavior. I believe James Madison proposed some sort of council of review, but I'm not sure if I recall that correctly. In any event, we have evolved a system of judicial supremacy that clearly is contrary to what the Framers intended and to what the American people would vote for if given a chance today.

[dayglored]

> The purpose of life tenure was to insulate the justices from political pressures so they could make proper, sober legal decisions.... The great flaw in the constitutional scheme adopted by the Framers is precisely the lack of any meaningful institutional check on the Supreme Court's behavior. I believe James Madison proposed some sort of council of review, but I'm not sure if I recall that correctly.

Agreed on the purpose of life tenure. My reading of the Founders' intent with regard to limits on SCOTUS was that two great forces would act to maintain balance: first and primarily, mortality; but secondarily, Congress' ability to impeach and remove from office any justice whose actions fall outside legal bounds.

I admit, neither of those limits are "institutional" in the manner you stated, and I agree that something might be proposed to fill that gap. It's a tough call, though -- the potential for abuse of that check, in its turn, is rather large.

[William Tell]

RepublicanPatriot said: "In any event, we have evolved a system of judicial supremacy that clearly is contrary to what the Framers intended and to what the American people would vote for if given a chance today."

I believe if our Founders could see what the US looks like today, they would have little concern with the few cases where judicial review has struck down legislation.

I think they would be repulsed by the degree to which federal power now dominates our lives and they would regret ever having suggested that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commcerce without an extremely limited definition of that phrase.

What would our Founders make of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" which outlawed some rifles simply because of the inclusion of a bayonet lug?