I disagree that the Judiciary has more power. I just point out that they get away with crap because the other two branches won't shove it up their @$$ and break it off for them.
Congress or the President can reign them in anytime they decide to do so, but they never do. Federal Judges only have power to order law enforcement to force compliance, because the President does not countermand their orders.
Were the President to tell the Federal Marshalls to refuse to follow the orders of Federal Judges, what could the Federal Judges do about it except whine and scream?
However, by 1973, most people had grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
It is axiomatic. It is inherent in the powers granted to the court, while not being specifically named. Just as the word "arms" covers bullets without the need to specifically mention bullets. The court weighs the correct application of laws. That is what it does. The Constitution is merely the highest of these laws to be weighed for application to cases.
A few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that.
That is not a power. That is a deliberate abuse of a power. That is lying, but they get away with it because the other two branches won't tell them to go F*** themselves.
Seriously, If I were President, I would order the Marshalls to refuse to enforce that order. I would inform the States that the court has lost it's F***ing mind, and it should henceforth be ignored, and no Federal action will be taken against any state which chooses to ignore that illegitimate decision.
I would then appeal to congress for the removal of all judges who voted to undermine our law.
That is an example of a court properly determining a question of constitutionality.
That is how it is supposed to work, and it still requires the court to sit in judgement over whether the restrictions of the US Constitution have been complied with.
In other words, you are supporting Judicial review, though you say you are against Judicial review.
You are a hard bird to follow.
We could live under a system where courts restrain themselves. It is not necessary for them to be searching around for new rights and new definitions. I think Jefferson was right about Marbury.
You can't have it both ways at the same time. You have to have Judicial review, and you have to depend on the other branches checking them when they get out of whack. We have a fault in the system, but the fault does not lie in the Judicial review area, it lies in the election process.
We allow Representatives and Senators to get elected that do not have the national interest at heart. We allow them to bribe the stupid and indolent portion of the population with government money, because we "touchy feely" enacted the 24th amendment, the 26th amendment, and while we are at it, the 19th amendment, all of which are disasters that have horribly disfigured what used to be a functional government.
And of course there is the 14th, which is another level of magnitude of a disaster.
Well, I might vote for you. You sound very thoughtful.
Of course, I will need to see your birth certificate first. ;-)