One suggestion that came along in the Fifties and early Sixties was the Court of Union, which was intended to correct the excesses of the Warren Court. The idea was that cases could be appealed from the Supreme Court to a higher court -- the 50 state chief justices meeting en banc as the Court of Union. It was a radical fringe idea that never caught on, but it might be something to explore.
Anything to mitigate the incestuous DC crowd, and throw in the idea from the Fifties of the Super Court too.
>One suggestion that came along in the Fifties and early Sixties was the Court of Union, which was intended to correct the excesses of the Warren Court.
While it _IS_ commendable to try to correct the Warren court’s rulings, it is perilous for us to institute an extra-constitutional court with superior power to the Supreme Court because of this: The Constitution is the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ and establishes the Supreme Court... thus to weaken/dilute/ignore the term ‘Supreme’ is only hurtful to a Constitutionalist’s point.
>The idea was that cases could be appealed from the Supreme Court to a higher court — the 50 state chief justices meeting en banc as the Court of Union.
The Constitution, Art 3, Sec 1 says, in part:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So, we can kick a Supreme Court justice out-of-office for violation of “good Behaviour,” lifetime appointment notwithstanding.
Section 3, of the same article, states the definition of treason. In it is included giving aid & comfort to the enemies [of the United States]; therefore, it can be argued that violation of their oath to the Constitution via gross negligence [allowing all manner of extra-Constitutional law, failure to grant citizens standing in ensuring that the Office of President of The United States _IS_ legitimately held, & (IMO, MOST Damning) allowing the Citizen to be denied the right to have the Constitution both “say what it means” and “mean what it says”.]
>It was a radical fringe idea that never caught on, but it might be something to explore.
I’d rather have people reading the Constitution, comprehending it, and demanding that it be applied “as written.” This would pretty much INSTANTLY dissolve federal agencies like the Depts of Energy, Education, Labor, Agriculture... and so forth. {That in itself will cut government expenditures.}