No thanks....I would rather wait until 2012 and vote him out than to have judges that ammend the constitution from the bench.... :-) I’m like you...time to write serious letters to Senators to NOT allow left of center judges be appointed by POTUS Obama.
You know....on a side note...I have always thought that whenever the SCOTUS produces a “landmark” decision that fundamentally changes how the constitution is viewed (in essence ammending it), that the decision should not be allowed to stand until ratified by 3/4 of the states like any ammendment must be. That would be a nice check and balance on “living document” advocates sitting on the bench. Of course that would really limit the power of the SCOTUS which can be a two edged sword.
“Your suggestion destroys the concept of separation of powers by giving state legislatures veto power over decisions of the Court; and who gets to decide what is “landmark” or not?
There is no way 3/4ths of the states would agree to overturn Roe v Wade for example, but 5 conservative Justices just might.”
When I wrote my diatribe, I immediately thought of the problem of how does one define “Landmark”, and hosestly don’t have a ready response.
I regards to RoeVWade...if what I proposed was in effect when the RoeVWade decision came down...it would NEVER have been ratified by 3/4 of the states at that time. Obviously, I’m not proposing that the power be made retroactive. And honestly, I’m just talking....I understand such veto power by states could be dangerous and a two edged sword. It just troubles me that the court has evolved into a de facto constitutional ammender based upon some wacky rulings....and there was no rapid mechanism to shut them down. Oh well, as long as humans run things...there will be flaws in any system.