Wouldn't that be nice. And when has that ever happened measuring from the time that they first started making themselves the Constitution in the 1930's. I have a better plan. Make them gods, embodied with no personal agendas or bias and able to pass perfect judgment. I'll take nine. Now back to reality.
The USSC was intended and created as a check against the power of Congress.
Were they asleep for the first 140 years? There is nothing in the Constitution about the Court being "more equal" than the other branches, and nothing about being final arbiter of the Constitution. The Constitution created the SC to be the ultimate arbiter of criminal and civil law, and to serve as a higher authority when states were in legal disagreement.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
That is authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law. Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
We can explicitly make anything constitutional they rule is unconstitutional. It's not particularly easy, and it isn't supposed to be.
Like all the amendments on partial birth abortion that keep getting overturned? The supreme court has already shown that if an amendment goes against how they have define the Constitution, they will just ignore it, or strike it down before it can be ratified.
Without any independent review of the constitutionality of Congressional legislation, you're left with a pure representative democracy, not a constitutional republic.
So we weren't a constitutional republic from founding until FDR? The House is independent of the Senate and the Senate likewise, as is the Executive. All told they are 537 individuals that are just as likely to be constitutionally minded, as the 9 on the SC. Probably more so, as they have to answer for their votes, and signatures.
Gonna do Congress while you're at it, or are Hillary and Teddy already perfect as far as your concerned?
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States
That includes any laws passed by Congress.
That is authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law.
If the constitutionality of federal law is not within their pervue, there is no point in them being Constitutional scholars or studying Constitutional Law. All that's left is to rule on propriety of the process.
Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
Fail to act on what? Marbury v Madison was in 1803. You seem to be interested in revising more than the Constitution.
Like all the amendments on partial birth abortion that keep getting overturned? The supreme court has already shown that if an amendment goes against how they have define the Constitution, they will just ignore it, or strike it down before it can be ratified.
What amendments on partial birth abortion? When has Congress drafted such an amendment and submitted it to the States for ratification?
That is authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law. Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
Read Marbury [1803]. It is has been accepted since then that the 'appellate Jurisdiction' clause delegates the Court authority to nullify unconstitutional 'law', whether fed/state/local. Can you agree?
There is nothing in the Constitution about the Court being "more equal" than the other branches,
Specious comment, as no one here so claims
and nothing about being final arbiter of the Constitution.
Again specious, as no one here has so claimed.
The Constitution created the SC to be the ultimate arbiter of criminal and civil law, and to serve as a higher authority when states were in legal disagreement.
See Marbury, as above.
The supreme court has already shown that if an amendment goes against how they have define the Constitution, they will just ignore it,
Quite true. They ignored the obvious unconstitutionality of the 16th, 17th & 18th Amendments.
or strike it down before it can be ratified.
??? -- You really will write most anything for effect, won't you?