Another option might be to require Supreme Court cases to be heard by both a secular court and one steeped in Biblical Law. You mean sort of like a Shariah court?
No, I think that's a bad idea. Leave it as it is, but ask broader questions and quick picking dumb asses like Roberts out of the blue.
That Obamacare ruling was one of the worst decisions ever.
No, NOT like a Sharia court. I just think we need to find some way to make sure judicial opinions consider the WHOLE of our law, including the basic foundation upon which it is built. A ruling that “seems” to comport with civil law, but IGNORES the roots of that law, is a bad decision.
It is absolutely astounding to me how freely judges ignore God’s Law and Natural Law, but claim their rulings are valid.
I'd rank Raich way up there too: Raich's reasoning was basically even though we said that intrastate commerce could be regulated by congress if it impacted interstate commerce, if there isn't interstate commerce, we can still regulate intrastate commerce.
(See the logical nullity there?) Raich was a unjust justification of the War on Drugs, just as Wickard was for congressional-regulation (American Fascism).
But their golden goose
of precedent really is Roe v. Wade, it proved that the States would accept that they could make something up out of whole cloth (a right to privacy, which doesn't touch on the real issue in the case [murder, and the ability of the States to define and prosecute it]) and use it to invalidate virtually every state's law if they wished. — look, also, at how this right to privacy does not apply to general interactions with police, or the TSA, or the NSA, or the ACA… no, it only applies to abortion.
Wickard is one that has been milked and derived from for a long time; I believe that they could find a way to overturn it and say that all decisions based on it are still valid, but that's because Raich and ACA prove how intellectually dishonest and power-mad they really are.