[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually the judiciary was set up specifically to resist democratic governance by the mob. It was designed to be independent so that decisions would be made on the basis of the Law rather than popular sentiment.

It is just the reflection of the popular view which makes this court so obnoxious. The "California view" is repugnant to most of the rest of the country.

[swilhelm73]

The judiciary was *never* intended to have the power it has today in the founders' vision. The SC did not even have the power of judicial review until 1805(?) in when they took the power in the famous Marbury decision.

That led to some dire warnings by a number of the founders - most notably Jefferson, obviously. Overall, the power of judicial review is fine when the judges confine themselves to the plain meaning of the Constitution. In theory, all branches of the government should consider the constitutionality of their actions before proceeding with them - but a court strictly empowered to voice what the Constitution says can act as a check on the other branches.

However, the power of judicial legislation, courts acting as a super legislative (and occasionally executive) branch, is something really only a few decades old, and fundamentally different from judicial review.

The founders did indeed insert a number of mechanisms to make it require more then a simple democratic majority to enact major changes in the country - the indirect election of senators, the electoral college, the federal system, and the supremacy of a written, easily understood Constitution.

The current judicial power grab was not only not part of this system, putting the rule of law over the rule of individual men, it is in fact its antithesis. The courts now rule either in favor of what they view to be the popular will, their own prejudices, and, amazingly, sometimes following the lead of foreign countries.

The judicial legislators have made the nightmare of the founders come somewhat true - unaccountable, local tyrants who have assumed the power to change the law at will.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?", warned one loyalist, and now our judicial masters are trying their best to make this warning our new system of government...

[AdamSelene235]

Actually the judiciary was set up specifically to resist democratic governance by the mob.

Ayup.

It was designed to be independent

I disagree. The structure of the judiciary is quite dependent upon Congress. There is very little in the Constitution regarding its structure or nature. Hell, the Founding Lawyers didn't even specify the number of Supreme Court Justices.

Bottom line: There ain't no checks and balances. What possible motive would the judicial/executive/legislative branch have to limit the power of the government? They're all on the same team. The checks and balances crap is just grist for government school mill.