[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".)

[Borges]

Hamilton said no such thing.

Here's a direct quote:

" Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

Congress already has the power of the purse to shut down some of these Appeals courts. They just don't have the fortitude to do so. However checks and balances insists that the Judicial Branch guard our Constitution from the whims of the electorate at any given time which Congress reflects. And all Judges rule based on their preferences and biases. The answer is to appoint Judges who's preferences and biases fit our own.

[johnb838]

The answer is not to appoint judges

Yer dern tootin... it's impossible to predict what an individual will do once they are on the bench, as we've learned to our chagrin over and over and over again.