Time to curb Supreme Court

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - ROGER JOHN­SON Kens­ing­ton, Mary­land

Although Chief Jus­tice John Roberts may ob­ject to Pres­i­dent Trump stat­ing the ob­vi­ous re­gard­ing the fed­eral ju­di­ciary, it nev­er­the­less ex­poses a fun­da­men­tal flaw in our Con­sti­tu­tion (“Judges likely to side with party who named them,” Web, Nov. 26).

The ex­ec­u­tive and leg­isla­tive branches of the gov­ern­ment are di­rectly an­swer­able to the peo­ple. Not so the ju­di­ciary. Ever since Mar­bury v. Madi­son es­tab­lished the prin­ci­ple of “ju­di­cial re­view” (trans­la­tion: ‘The con­sti­tu­tion means what WE say it does’), what was sup­posed to be the weak­est branch is ef­fec­tively an­swer­able only to it­self.

This ar­ro­gance en­ables the jus­tices to dis­cover a tax that Congress in­sisted was not a tax. The Supreme Court ren­dered states’ bi­cam­eral leg­is­la­tures -- mod­eled after the fed­eral leg­is­la­ture -- re­dun­dant in Reynolds v. Sims. There is even a cur­rently seated as­so­ciate jus­tice who looks to the Con­sti­tu­tion of South Africa as in­spi­ra­tion for her opin­ions.

In prac­ti­cal terms, then, there is very lit­tle in our Con­sti­tu­tion lim­it­ing the power of the fed­eral ju­di­ciary.

In his book “The Lib­erty Amend­ments: Restor­ing the Amer­i­can Re­pub­lic,” noted author Mark R. Levin sug­gests amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion to limit jus­tices of the Supreme Court to no more than 12 years of ser­vice and, among other things, al­low­ing ei­ther Congress or the state leg­is­la­tures to over­ride a Supreme Court opin­ion. Such an amend­ment would em­power “We The Peo­ple” to curb ju­di­cial ex­cesses.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.