[Zero Sum]

The prerogative of judicial review never belonged to this federal judge to begin with. It only belongs to the Supreme Court, to declare unconstitutional laws that are abhorrent to the Constitution.

I'll give an example: The Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional because it gave extra-Constitutional legislative power to the executive. The only Constitutional way to make such a law would be through an Amendment.

But when the courts decide to declare something unconstitutional based on foreign law or their own personal whims - which has happened all too often recently - it is prudent for Congress to use their Constitutional power of impeaching these rogue judges.

[goldstategop]

Impeachment will not do the job. The only way is to remove judges' unchecked power is by terminating their prerogative to declare laws unconstitutional. It would dramatically diminish the role of the judiciary in American life and that alone would be a healthy thing. To safeguard against unconstitutional excess, the people would need to vote for their lawmaker's constitutional stand. No longer would legislators be able to hide behind the courts. They would have to inform the people on what they think the Constitution means.

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

[blackdog]

The reason that this is happening, that being judicial tyrany outside the USSC, is that the USSC is way too selective in hearing cases and arguments which are vital to projecting it's role. The USSC hides from more cases needing constitutional clarity than it actually hears before it. If the USSC would begin with a couple headbangers that would shake the foundations of the nationwide judicial funpark, it might serve to tug on the leash a bit.