[Notforprophet]

You might as well have impeached the 1972 court for giving us the Roe v. Wade decision. The SCOTUS is unique in that it has no accountability to the electorate. Impeachment of any of the nine Supremes is highly improbable.

NFP

[Uncle Miltie]

"You might as well have impeached the 1972 court for giving us the Roe v. Wade decision."

An excellent idea, if late. Nip it in the bud, I always say.

[El Gato]

The SCOTUS is unique in that it has no accountability to the electorate.

The only check on the Supreme Court, if it runs amok and starts legislating from the bench, is impeachment. If Congress passes an unconsitutional law , the President can, and should, veto it and/or the Courts can declare it unconstitutional. If the President starting doing stupid or unconstitutional stuff, the Congress can cut off the funding for it or the Courts can enjoin it. There has to some check on the Judicial Branch as well.

One thing that might work and not be too disruptive, would be to have laws reviewed for Constitutionality before they can go into effect, but once declared Constitutional, they could no longer be challenged in the Court system on that basis, absent a Constitutional amendment touching on the principles involved. The way it is now, every law is subject to the whims of some future Court, with no appeal other than to pass a Constitutional amendment, which rarely happens and even if it did, would not be a good thing. The federal Constitution would soon become like those of many states, full of minutia rather than being a broad set of principles with just a few detailed prescriptions. This might also help with the problem of the "living Constitution", whereby the Courts change the plain meaning and understanding of Constitutional principals to suit their own tastes. It might also cut down on the number of laws , since the ability of the Courts to review them would be finite, and if they weren't reviewed, they'd not become laws.