[Borges]

In FP #78, Hamilton said that Judges would have the power to declare a law void. The Constitution gives the USSC jurisdiction over 'all cases in law and Equity'. Even Justice Scalia doesn't want to get rid of Marbury Vs Madison which he rightly notes as a plagiarism of Hamilton in the FP.

Leaving Legislative bodies in charge of the Constitution is like leaving wolves in charge of the Hen house. It's a document that lists the sort of laws they are not allowed to pass. The Judicial branch is there to make sure they don't. The answer is to appoint good judges.

[goldstategop]

Hamilton said no such thing. The Framers assured the public they would not have to fear from judicial despotism because the courts were dependent on the public purse. Little did they see the courts would gain through Marbury the right to literally make the law as they saw fit. And judicial review has allowed judges to express contempt for the will of the people by reading into the law their own personal or ideological preferences. The answer is not to appoint judges but rather to restore the final say about what the law means to the elected representatives of the people. That can be brought about only through abolishing judicial review.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Maceman]

Leaving Legislative bodies in charge of the Constitution is like leaving wolves in charge of the Hen house. It's a document that lists the sort of laws they are not allowed to pass. The Judicial branch is there to make sure they don't. The answer is to appoint good judges.

Utter rubbish. The practical result of what you say is that every law passed by the legislators and voters is subject to the approval of 5 judges.

Our government is NOT supposed to depend solely on whether we have "good" people in charge. We need protection from tyranny most of all when "good" people are not in charge.

Ultimately, any law is only as good as the society that creates it. And certainly We the People are capable of creating bad laws through our legislature.

But if there has to be an ultimate authority, I would much rather it be the people's representatives than 5 so-called good judges, who in essence can amend the Constitution at will without contradiction.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Electoral College is an anachronism that violates the "one man/one vote" principle, based on "evolving international law and opinion," would we just have to accept that? Do you think such a scenario is impossible, given what we have heard from our sitting Supreme Court judges in recent years?

If we are to go to Hell with bad laws, at least let them be the laws made by "We the People" and not "We the Judges."

Personally, I would like to see a Constitional amendment stipulating that any Supreme court ruling can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, plus requiring the president's signature.

Such a remedy against judicial tyranny would be the only way to protect us from the capricious rule of non-"good" judges.

We have to have a system of checks and balances. What checks and balances exist now to control an out-of-control judiciary run amok? Answer? None.

And if there is to be an "ultimate" human authority on our laws, certainly what I have proposed, or something very like it, ought to be it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Marshall's reasoning was always based upon Hamilton. He said that compared to Hamilton's judicial understanding Marshall's was "like a taper to the sun." It is unfortunate that H could not accept a nomination to the USSC because of his financial needs (he had 8 children.)