“Flipping the vote of just one justice would keep abortion rights intact.”
The Supreme Court’s ability to declare things unconstitutional and apparently write new rules with the force of law they simply gave themselves in 1803. If you read Article III you’ll find nothing in there about overturning state or federal laws.
But regardless, here we are. Seven justices were convinced that abortion was a right conferred by the Constitution. They found it by looking in the ‘penumbra’ of the implied right to privacy. It only took five justices to redefine marriage after thousands of years of people thinking that it involved relationships exclusively between men and women. And, of course, we’ll soon enjoy the rulings of a justice who finds defining ‘woman’ beyond her level of knowledge.
“And that’s the problem with our current system of government right there in a nutshell. Changing the vote of one unelected person out of nine can save or condemn millions of lives.”
I went and read article 3... Sounds pretty comprehensive in their power to adjudicate. Interesting, though, that as far as I can see, there is nothing regarding the power that they may use to enforce their rulings.
I agree, though, that its not a very good system. I would prefer one where to pass a law you need a supermajority - like 70% - and that they would be subject to a sunset after x number of years.
This would lead to fewer laws, more freedom (and who doesn’t think we have way too many laws as it is) AND, more importantly, the laws would have widespread support.
It seems like this would render the supreme court unnecessary as a judge of the constitutionality of a law. It would only rule on the merits of the cases vis-a-vis existing laws.
Article 3...
“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.”
As we found out with the Kenyanesian Usurpation they can change the Constitution by just refusing to hear cases.
Obama is not a natural born citizen and they all know it.