Patrick said:
This is simply false. The Supreme Court, with the subordinate federal courts, is certainly the most powerful branch of the federal government, and has played a key role in the erosion of democracy in our society, which claims to be a government of laws, not of men. In a gradual assumption of power that goes back almost to the founding of the republic, notably in Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court has gradually gathered in ultimate, unaswerable power.
This is a heck of a claim. Let's see the reasoning...
Listen to poli-sci professors and other liberals wax enthusiatic about how "brilliant" Marbury v. Madison was - they LOVE it
My poli-sci prof hated it. He wouldn't shut up about it, as a matter of fact.
I don't see it as brilliant jurisprudence as much as I see it as the only logical conclusion if the constitution is to be given practical legal effect. This latter assumption is where my pol-sci prof objected. He thought the constitution shouldn't be enforced by the courts, only by the people at the ballot box.
As a political matter the timing may be considered brilliant by fans of political tactics, but that really has nothing to do with legitimacy.
because it was in line with how they've always thought about politics: the people in charge should be the best and brightest
You would rather have dumb people in charge?
who are justified in having power because they in their generous spirit and uber wisdom will do for the unwashed masses what they are unable to do for themselves - look after their best interests.
Most people are too busy making a living to fully comprehend what is in their own best interest when it comes to larger decisions. I go to a doctor when I am sick, a car mechanic when my car breaks down, so why not look to a specialist, and let the best and brightest run the country?
Left to themselves, that is actually having a final vote on things that sticks, they'll do stupid things.
Who is more likely to make a good decision w/r/t a government policy, someone who has studied the area and spends all day thinking about it, or someone who overhauls transmissions and then zones out in front of the tube?
You have nothing to offer but unsupported anti-elitism at this point.
Today, the court has virtually unchallenged power, and uses it, for example blowing away the Equal Protection Clause in the U of M case with the stroke of a pen.
No, just disagreeing with your idea of what the EP clause should be.
The vaunted supposed "checks and balances" between the three branches, one of the myths taught in government schools, fails in the case of the supreme court - the "checks" on them are trivial.
Impeachment is trivial? The possible packing of the court is trivial? That the constitution can be changed is trivial? That the executive could simply ignore what it sees as a clearly illegal decision is trivial? Not to mention the ability to amend the constitution.
You only see it as trivial because the abovce rarely happens. This is because, despite all the political whining and chest thumping, the Supreme Court has acted reasonably, and thankfully most in government today have the wisdom to recognize that people can disagree, and not everyone is going to love everything the Supreme Court decides.
For example, after a long hard fight in the state of california, involving getting a huge number of initiative petitions signed (the most direct form of democracy), taking up millions of dollars and countless hours of peoples' time, carefully considering the actual constitutional issues in crafting the state initiative, and getting it passed by an overwhelming majority, prop 187, which would have limited the public services for illegal aliens, was disposed of in a brief hearing by a liberal/left federal judge with the infamous stroke of a pen after a very brief hearing.
What I don't see here is why this decision was wrong. Sorry that a bunch of xenophobes are disappointed that their little project turned out to violate the constitution, but this has no bearing on whether the decision was wrong, unless you are claiming that the constitution should have no practical legal effect and therefore should be ignored by the courts. If so, just leave it at that. Perhaps I can give you my old prof's name and the two of you can go bowling or something and complain about John Marshall.
"A long hard fight" has no value when the object of that fight is worthless. Unless you are making a marxist appeal to the inherent value of labor. However, since you do not strike me as a marxist I will just assume this is a fallacious appeal to emotion.
How do you think people reacted? "Duh, this is an outrage, but let's just go along with it. We don't have to, because the district court doesn't have guns, but they have the moral authority that all us trailer trash should respect."
Pretty much. Only add that the people with guns also are following the moral authority of the court.
What would the court do if California had told the Fed court to jam it and went on enforcing this law? Maybe appeal to the president. What if he did the same?
The USSC certainly is not left with only "moral authority" - short of the U.S. morphing suddenly into a banana republic dictatorship or anarchy,
Whoops. Turns out you are just confused. At least you see the possibilities. You could eliminate the court from ever passing on a constitutional issue and this country would hardly be a dictatorship. Constitutional enforcement would just be in the hands of a different branch, perhaps the people in general would be more serious about it. Who knows. Assuming a dictatorship does nothing but support the idea that the court should have these powers and they should be respectred.
This is exactly the moral authority I describe. Thank you for confirming it...
the logic of the system requires that the USSC be obeyed - and they are, even when tens of millions of people disagree with them on the most profound issues of life and death, as for example in Roe vs Wade.
The reining in of the SC is LONG overdue.
Actually, based on your above reasoning such reining in would result in a dictatorship or banana republic....
