March 17, 2004

You think up a suitably insulting title for this one

Posted by Curt at 07:12 PM in Politics | TrackBack

Oh, Jesus. So now one of the anti-gay marriage Congressional reps. wants to give Congress veto power over Supreme Court decisions. As has already been pointed out, this act would of course not have any bearing on federal “activist judges” or on state supreme courts and in any case, not being a constitutional amendment would, ironically enough, be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but this sort of idiocy dumbfounds me. Trying to push this sort of thing through on the principal of giving the opinion of the majority more weight against “judicial activism” just demonstrates fully why the courts are intended to be outside the purvew of majority opinion. As much as I deplore the political emasculation of people outside of poltical circles in this country, the only thing worse is having every personal liberty subject to the whims of the majority. One Tory during the American Revolution characterized the difference between monarchy and democracy as the difference between one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants 2 miles away. Anyway, if Congress wants to correct the imbalance of power between the branches of government, perhaps it should stop rubber-stamping proposals from the executive branch like war powers resolutions and fiscally catastrophic Medicare bills rather than trying to end judicial review.


From the article:

"As judicial power expands, Congressional power contracts," said Lewis. "This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest 'right' hiding between the lines of our founding document."

Gee, which branch's power has expanded more since 1787? If you said "judicial", then I've got some real estate you should seriously consider purchasing.

Posted by: shonk at March 17, 2004 09:59 PM