The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

[Bigun]

But what is business within their proper boundaries?  Are you saying that Courts should not have the power to adjudicate cases involving the other branches of government?

I'm saying that these federal district court judges who, of late, began the practice of offering opinions that seek to prevent the President from doing his job are WAY out of bounds! 

[Cyber Liberty]

Courts move into the realm of impropriety when they dictate policy instead of calling balls and strikes.   This is especially egregious when a Federal Judge in Hawaii can dictate policy to Rhode Island.

[Bigun]

Courts move into the realm of impropriety when they dictate policy instead of calling balls and strikes.   This is especially egregious when a Federal Judge in Hawaii can dictate policy to Rhode Island.

Yes!  Very much so!

[libertybele]

Good Read @Bigun and appreciated the visuals @mrclose ... Articles like this are a pleasure to run across.

Ditto.  Thank you both.

[Jazzhead]

And that Roe V Wade law.  Who the heck passed that one?

It's not a law, of course, but a ruling with respect to the Constitution's protection of natural rights from arbitrary denial by the State.  But a mechanism exists for the People to override the Court's determination -  a Constitutional amendment.    That no such amendment has been passed, or even seriously considered, in the past 45 years suggests that that People are not particularly concerned that the Court expanded the Constitution's protections in an unacceptable way.     

[Bigun]

It's not a law, of course, but a ruling with respect to the Constitution's protection of natural rights from arbitrary denial by the State.  But a mechanism exists for the People to override the Court's determination -  a Constitutional amendment.    That no such amendment has been passed, or even seriously considered, in the past 45 years suggests that that People are not particularly concerned that the Court expanded the Constitution's protections in an unacceptable way.   

Or it can simply be ignored!  There is a reason courts were given exactly zero powers of enforcement in the Constitution.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It's not a law, of course, but a ruling with respect to the Constitution's protection of natural rights from arbitrary denial by the State.  But a mechanism exists for the People to override the Court's determination -  a Constitutional amendment.    That no such amendment has been passed, or even seriously considered, in the past 45 years suggests that that People are not particularly concerned that the Court expanded the Constitution's protections in an unacceptable way.   

@Jazzhead
Our current Government can't pass legislation because the voters are divided and the people they elect are divided.  Passing an amendment to the constitution is harder still, but I think I understand your main point as "politicians/governments will only do what the people allow them to get away with."  The problem isn't the laws, the problem is the people, and on that I agree.

[Slide Rule]

Excellent post Bigun.

Beer!

Al

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Our current Government can't pass legislation because the voters are divided and the people they elect are divided.  Passing an amendment to the constitution is harder still, but I think I understand your main point as "politicians/governments will only do what the people allow them to get away with."  The problem isn't the laws, the problem is the people, and on that I agree.

The problem is we the people, but only insofar as we don't demand more from politicians.   Politicians are obsessed these days with partisanship and all the obstruction and warfare that implies, not the passage of sound legislation.   And perhaps politicians are tribal because people more and more these days are tribal.   I'm sure you've seen studies showing many of us don't marry or socialize with members of the other party,  nor do we listen to news other than from media outlets that reinforce our biases.

And there's no other issue - not one - on which the people and the Congresspersons they elect are more tribal and uncompromising than the issue of abortion. 

So we've had 45 years to pass a Constitutional amendment to address the matter of abortion, and we've failed to do so.   And I doubt we ever will,  so Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land, and women will have the right to control their own destinies.     

[txradioguy]

Courts move into the realm of impropriety when they dictate policy instead of calling balls and strikes.   This is especially egregious when a Federal Judge in Hawaii can dictate policy to Rhode Island.

I was reading an article on Daily Wire about how the courts activism has blocked the Department of Education from rolling back some of the more egregious Obama era policies.  This part of the article seemed very appropriate for this discussion:

In an era in which lower courts run amok serve as a one-way ratchet for the progressive agenda, and in which "but judges!" and "but Gorsuch!" seem to be the preeminent rallying cries for large swaths of the "conservative" base, there is perhaps an even more profound problem. When legislators, bureaucratic mandarins, and citizen-activists alike of all political stripes are complicit in the delegation of power to unelected black-robed oracles behind the bench, the ultimate risk is civic in nature.

What We the People ultimately risk losing, besides our ability to govern ourselves and direct our own political destiny, is the citizen-driven associative industriousness and civic virtue that made Tocqueville so fond of the American experiment. ...How are we to remain duty-minded and constantly vigilant against tyranny if that tyranny comes not in the form of legislators and executives who can be held accountable at the ballot box, but in the form of judicial usurpers who accomplish with the stroke of a pen what the political and cultural Left could not otherwise accomplish over the span of decades?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45100/trump-department-education-being-repeatedly-josh-hammer

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I was reading an article on Daily Wire about how the courts activism has blocked the Department of Education from rolling back some of the more egregious Obama era policies.  This part of the article seemed very appropriate for this discussion:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45100/trump-department-education-being-repeatedly-josh-hammer

We are getting closer all the time when the courts' over-reach will be the tipping point and legislators or Executive will simply ignore the rulings.

Who will enforce the court's ruling anyway?  Their lack of enforcement power is why they are considerably weaker than the other two branches, by design.

It will be a constitutional crisis, caused by Judicial.