What's wrong is that you don't have a court made up of like minded individuals. Have you noticed that Thomas writes mainly minority positions?
The Court is given far too much undeserved praise for being non-political, and an objective guardian of the Constitution.
I'd like to get back to your premise that the Court isn't really unchecked, because the People can always pass Amendments. First, you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority. Now let's look at your assertion. If the People pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that black people can't vote, and the first case goes before the Supreme Court. The Court will strike down the laws created in the umbrella of the new amendment, because the laws are in violation of the preponderance of the Constitution, and there is no mechanism to stop that. Now I used a clear example, where the SC ruling was what we would all agree with, but the SC can do the same with anything.
Also please explain how you are protecting us all from the whims of the People, when a single election can result in a President who packs the court with zealots of a particular flavor who will rule for the next 40 years? Are you simply trusting statistics that 5 of 9 elderly people don't die within a four year, or eight year span? Or that the Senate and President are never like minded?
I have. Have you noticed that he's of the opinion that the current federal drug war is not within Congress' powers as they were originally intended and granted?
The Court is given far too much undeserved praise for being non-political, and an objective guardian of the Constitution.
By who? You've accused me of it simply because I submit that they are less subject to the influence of special interest groups.
I'd like to get back to your premise that the Court isn't really unchecked, because the People can always pass Amendments. First, you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority. Now let's look at your assertion. If the People pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that black people can't vote, and the first case goes before the Supreme Court. The Court will strike down the laws created in the umbrella of the new amendment, because the laws are in violation of the preponderance of the Constitution, and there is no mechanism to stop that. Now I used a clear example, where the SC ruling was what we would all agree with, but the SC can do the same with anything.
What a pantload. Just exactly where in your vision of "how things ought to be" is there any protection of fundamental rights? You wouldn't even require a supermajority and ratification by the States. You want a simple majority of Congress and the president's signature to be enough. If a simply majority of Congress passes a law that says black people can't vote, and the president signs it, what then?
Also please explain how you are protecting us all from the whims of the People, when a single election can result in a President who packs the court with zealots of a particular flavor who will rule for the next 40 years? Are you simply trusting statistics that 5 of 9 elderly people don't die within a four year, or eight year span? Or that the Senate and President are never like minded?
Explain how doing away with judicial review is going to make it any better. The president won't need to pack the court, or even threaten to because they won't be any obstacle to he and a like minded Congress doing whatever they want.
You don't like what the Court has become and the decisions they've made. That much we can agree on. Why do you want to eliminate the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, and leave the Legislative and Executive branches unchecked when they are largely responsible for the Court being the in shape it is today?