Winston Smith wrote:There is an "experiment" in government going on in the U.S aimed at remedying the weaknesses of representative government but silent coup is probably a better term. Year by year the Supreme Court is gradually usurping the policy making power of elected representatives on the theory that some nebulous "living Constitution" gives them a greater mandate to make public policy than the will of the people -- which we all "know" is corrupt, venal and incapable of making rational decisions. The "living Constitution", of course, being nothing more than a euphemism for the personal philosophies of each Supreme Court justice.
Consequently an unelected, unaccountable politburo of "intellectually and morally superior progressives" is gradually supplanting the legislative branch's power to make public policy and there's little that can be done about it because there's no effective check on the power of the judicial branch to exercise what is euphemistically called "judicial activism" other than its own self restraint, "judicial activism" being another pleasant sounding euphemism for legislation without representation.
Consequently Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings are where the real future course of the nation is decided which is why they have become so contentious. The only barrier to the establishment of the "golden age of judicial activism" and a "living Constitution" form of government being the damnable habit of the American people to elect presidents who won't surrender all nine slots on America's nascent politburo to its "progressive elite."
Your train of thought is somewhat hard for me to follow. You are upset that the Supreme Court is gradually subverting the constitutional order, and your solution to this is to obliterate the constitutional order by eliminating judicial review? And, to engage in a vague but extreme-sounding democratic "experiment" in complete defiance of our republican tradition? You will restore the tradition by turning to "pure" democracy?
In any case, a number of conservative political theorists, as I recall, back in the '90s suggested that the Congressional power to impeach and remove Supreme Court justices was so extreme that it would likely never be used and that the Framers should have established a process that would allow a super-majority of some kind to overturn specific Supreme Court rulings or that Supreme Court justices should be given renewable terms of 12 years (i.e., double a Senator's term) instead of lifelong tenure. Might there be some more nuanced way of curbing Supreme Court power rather than engaging in an "experiment"?
Outside of the federal government, the States were always the entities most likely to be able to generate opposition to Supreme Court rulings, but the democratization of the Senate did a lot to cripple state power, so I don't see how further democratization is going to solve whatever problems you have with the Court.
It seems fair to point out that the Courts have, rather ironically, done an incredible amount to democratize America, particularly on the question of race. "One man, one vote" is an invention of the Supreme Court, as far as I am aware. I guess my question is, would you characterize yourself primarily as a constitutionalist or a democrat? It might be easier for me to understand your point of view.
