2020 Election early voting and eventually results

That is what the congress is there for.You know they have, and use, very strong oversight powers on the Federal courts?They can add/remove/impeach justices, negate almost any ruling with their own legislation and can even order the court to not rule on an issue.How much more oversite do you want?Want to overturn a court decision for purely political reasons? Have at it. The remedy is there, though the founders did not make it flim-flam easy to do ... for what should be glaringly obvious reasons. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I agree that there should be checks. That is, the legislators should actually pass well-written laws (and take the heat from their constituents if the laws are unpopular) rather than pound the lectern and demand that "correct" judges and justices be appointed so that policy ends up being made by court decisions (which the legislators won't take as much heat for).As for your snarky remark about me being further to the right than "you like to think", what gives you that notion, aside from your own wishful thinking?

Dred Scott legislated the repeal of the Missouri Compromise just as surely as if Congress had voted to repeal it. But Congress didn't.If you don't say (as the court didn't in Korematsu) that the other branches of the government have to live up to the law - fiat justitia ruat caelum - that is changing the law.If you interpret "public purpose" as meaning "for the benefit of a private property developer" (as the court did in Kelo) then you're rewriting the law with a bucket of whiteout and a fat Sharpie.Roe was a disaster for public health. At the time, many states were quietly decriminalizing abortion. Now, because Justice Blackmun thought nine years as counsel for the Mayo Clinic gave him the authority to write laws regulating the practice of medicine, such a hornets nest was stirred up that abortion clinics are literally under siege (I found a list of six states that, as of 2019, had but one abortion clinic still open!)

Yeah, declaring the legislation unconstitutional has a way of repealing it. Intentionally.You are familiar with Marbury v. Madison? In another thread we had a religious gentleman whose twisted logic you emulate quite well. New London professed the belief that the development, though led by a private concern, benefited the economic growth of the whole town. A great public good and so a great public purpose. The court agreed. And cited ample precedent.Your sharpie just went to Florida on Marine One. Fat jstitia ruat clumThat issue is not the court's. It is the christians and the republicans. Take your complains to them.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I agree that there should be checks. That is, the legislators should actually pass well-written laws (and take the heat from their constituents if the laws are unpopular) rather than pound the lectern and demand that "correct" judges and justices be appointed so that policy ends up being made by court decisions (which the legislators won't take as much heat for).

---

Then obviously you agree with me that a campaign to politically bias the courts should be reversed.

quote:

---

As for your snarky remark about me being further to the right than "you like to think", what gives you that notion, aside from your own wishful thinking?

---

The fact that you keep trying to suggest that balance is not a centrist position?