That is the way the system is supposed to work.
I guess the AP is scared.
It is checks and ballances not the black robe monarchy.
So if the "national will" of the people and Congress ever gets to the point as to desire sex with 7 year olds to be legal, and the Supreme Court says no, can't do it, Congress should be able to "override" the Supreme Court? Bad idea.
Newt '08
Get it Done
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California:
Please be advised, you are hereby given 30 days notice to find new employment.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California is in keeping with recent court rulings, being seized under emminent domain, for the greater public good.
You are henceforth compensated in the amount of Twenty (20) US Dollars.
Your servants for the greater Public Good.
Congress of the United States of America."
Remember, too , that the court has changed and while great weight is given to past decisions, many have been overturned by a new ruling.
I don't think this would be such a great idea. Suppose some future liberal Congress passes a bill to ban all firearms ownership, signed into law by a liberal President. The Supreme Court then rules the law unconstitutional. Congress can then overrule the Supreme Court without having to go thrue the difficult process of amending the constitution.
Well, the Supreme Court has no executive powers of its own, so technically, it can rule on cases from now till St. Swithin's Day, and if the other branches -- or The People -- refuse to observe its dictates, it is powerless to enforce them.
For example, if the Supreme Court injects itself into a matter regarding display of the Ten Commandments at a State facility, or a Cross at a State monument site, under no circumstances does ANY Federal court have jurisdiction. The Alabama and San Diego cases come directly to mind. The 2nd and 10th Amendments clearly give that jurisdiction solely to the State's highest court. And therefore any Federal court decisions may be and should be ignored and any fines assessed not paid. The Governor of that state may freely refuse to enforce the order, and the President may freely refuse to provide enforcement using Federal resources. That is nullification in a nutshell.
" by five to four, judges can rewrite the Constitution, but it takes two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the states to equal five judges,"
Gingrich makes a valid point.Getting two-thirds of Congress and three-forths of the states to agree on anything is about equal to pushing Mt. Everest over a couple of feet, and the accomplishment can be blown out of the water in a heartbeat by five liberal judges !!!
Ditto. A great idea. The Supremes have caused enough damage.
If one will go back in history...an opinion is just that an opinion, a President can disregard it, especially if it doesn't line up with the constitution. Past president's have done that a number of times.