[Tarkin]

So you think that in order to overrule Roe we should pass a Constitutional Amendment? What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Was the SCOTUS supposed to uphold it, if they believed that it was unconstitutional? And what about precedents that overruled previous precedents (like West Coast Hotel v. Parrish f.ex.)? :-)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

A certain consistency...

Nothing you say is wrong, it's just that without S.D. we're only temporizing. Precedents countermand precedents and courts are even less restrained and rule of law further eroded.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Yes, btw, I think we do need a Constitutional amendment to overturn R.v.W. That should put a stake in its black heart. Remember at the time of R.v.W. abortion was legal in at least two states. The authors of RvW possessed the kind of tinkering busybody mentality that leads to things like the European Constitution.

[LibertarianInExile]

LIM has a point, and you do, too, Tarkin.

LIM's right in that we don't solve the problem if we appoint judges. We just make it temporarily go away.

Tarkin, you're right in that the judges shouldn't be only reversible by constitutional amendment.

I think we should impeach `em, personally. And that'd be easier than any constitutional amendment.

The problem is amendments don't happen. Impeachments don't happen. And as a result, the best chance we have to get things back to where they once belonged is appointments.

Which sucks. Yeah, ideally the problem ought to be fixed permanently by amendment after the appointments by removing the bastardized language that has been so abused and replacing it with more limited language that doesn't allow for misinterpretation. But that can't happen right now. I am inclined toward optimism unless it's estimating the intelligence of the American people in the face of MSM propagandizing. By the time constitutionalists are appointed, if the MSM is neutered, we might have a shot, however.