Replies

"My basic point is, the judiciary is the only branch of government that is not directly liable to the masses; furthermore, this is vital to the balance of power.

There's no way you and I are going to agree on the role of the Judiciary in today's government. Let me say that this isn't the 1700's, and the intended role of the Judiciary at that time wasn't as a law making body, nor did it usurp power from the Legislature.

Times have changed and with it the role of the Judiciary. Any cursory inspection of the Founders writing will show they never meant for the High Court to be unaccountable to the people, or to be a law making body superior to the Congress. The People once had access to the Judiciary via their representatives in Congress. That is no longer the case. No Judicial committee from either the House or Senate has held hearings on, or investigations into, the Supreme Courts judicial activism, making the Congress equally liable for the Courts excesses. There is no action that cn be taken against the Court aside from Congress, and with the "shield" of Congress taken from them the people are naked before the Court and without recourse.

The judiciary's purpose is to prevent "tyranny of the majority,"

You're forgetting the tyranny of the Judiciary. An old, but true, maxim: "Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Common sense must tell you that any politician who has no accountablity, can make law with impunity, and is unremovable from office will in time abuse the trust, and authority, given to him. This is human nature. A review of the High Court's past rulings reveals it to be exceeding its Constitutional authority, and no longer does its vow to protect and defend the Constitution ring true.

What you're trying to defend is pure Republicanism as the Founders saw it and that's admirable, but leaving the High Court to wreak further havoc on this nation would be foolheardy. The Founders gave the People the means to change their government should one branch amass too much power. They thought it would be the Executive branch, not the Judiciary, but they put controls on the Judiciary as well which the Congress doesn't use.

As I said in the opening of this post: "There's no way you and I are going to agree..." But, consider this: without changing any Judicial structure from the way it is now, Congress can at any time of its choosing hold hearings to investigate the rational, precedents, and logic behind recent High Court decisions affecting American society. A perfect example would be the expected upcoming case involving the Alabama Ten Commandments that's winding its way slowly toward the Supreme Court. Because that case will involve basic First Amendment law the Congressional Judiciary Committees should be gearing up for hearings on the outcome no matter which way it goes.

But, the Congress is doing nothing. There will be no hearings, although Congress is mandated to regulate the Judiciary. There will be no investigations either.

If the "majority" very strongly objects to a decision by the courts, there are then recourses they can take to 1) amend constitutions and 2) impeach judges.

It takes Congress to do that, and as I've said Congress will do nothing .

Since the objection to Lawrence by the masses doesn't approach unanimity, congress won't use it as a reason to amend the constitution ...

How does anyone know if unanimity has been reached or not? What has Congress done to find out?

All of this produces a "smell" that leaves the people with no congressional champion, and no way to hold the High Court accountable through the Congress.