redblueamerica.com

These words are very strong.  I know, but for any student of comparative legal systems it is undeniable to acknowldge that there are other legal frameworks in other Republics that just as well as ours AND please everyone.   Whether you agree or disagree with the most recent Supreme Court ruling, all agree that the Supreme Court has authority over a vast array of issues and values that generate heated debate.  And they are the final arbiters.  No one argues that they are not.  Both liberals and conservatives acknowledge this authority.  President Bush on Wednesday said he disagreed with the Court but would abide by the decision.  That seems unremarkable, but it is because why should he listen to 9 individuals.  Why?

Why should Nine,  NINE, individuals who are CHOSEN, not elected, for LIFE, have so much say in the course of a nation of 300 million people?  I posit that the British have it right, not us.  Their House of Lords, their version of the Supreme Court, has no right to strike down ANY law of Parliament.  That's right - they  can argue something is a contraditction or should not be interpreted some way, but Parliament cand do what it damb well pleases.  In the words of an English Jurist "PARLIAMENT IS SUPREME." 

It is above the king, queen, courts, and anyone else.  Any they are elected.  The British are very happy with this system, and no matter what policy is taken up, at least they know the will of the people is expressed through parliament.  No life time tenures. 

The funniest thing is that most judges, attorneys, and educated people in the US believe that Seperation of Powers is a necessity to protect freedom.  I agree, but frankly the Judiciary was never meant to be remotely even close to an equal co-branch of governement.  Oh, yes law schools love to preach about seperation of powers and the magnificence of the Courts, but gloss over the fact that the Court TOOK the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison over a decade AFTER the Constitution came into being.

There were founders who wanted a powerful court and those who wanted an impotent court.  Thomas Jefferson, a state's rights kind of guy, himself had a run in with the Court.  And why not?  The Courts, like the English Courts, were not meant to wield the power of the legislature.  No, judges wrested this power slowly over the years. 

One president understood the ridiculous authority the Court was trying to take for itself: Andrew Jackson.  Jackson was famous for saying "The Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it!"  That's right, President Jackson, ignored the Court in the Cherokee cases and did what he dambed well pleased.  And guess what?  No one complained.  Why?  Because the Court would not overturn the will of the political branches when the people agreed with the actions.  It's called democracy.  Something the Courts don't like to much.

Here is something else law schools don't like to focus on.  Right after the Civil War, Congress forbade, that's right, FORBADE, the court from deciding any cases dealing with rebel soldiers in custody challenging detention under Habeaus Corpus.  Sounds familiar huh?  This case is very disturbing to Liberals and law schools who hold judges as the pinnacle of true political power.  But did the people complain?  Nope, because the Court should never consider itself an equal part of government.

It was not until the 20th century that the Court took it upon itself to become as activist as it is today.  Conservatives argue that we need to appoint judges who will not legislate on the bench.  That is both impossible and ridiculous if you accept the fact that the Court must be an equal branch of government.  All judges, whether conservative or liberal, have agendas, just like politicians.  No the answer is too extreme for everyone because they are mired in 20th century indoctrination by lawyers.

The answer is to take the power of American Judicial review from the Supreme Court and castrate it to the point where it has no more power than the Law Lords of the UK enjoy.  Democracy exists very fine and well in most parliamentary systems that do not, DO NOT, make their courts equal branches of government.  Take away the right to strike down laws made by Congress or parliament and then you will have a reall Republic. 

Thus i put forth the now radical, but common idea in the early years of our Republic, that the judiciary not have the power of Judicial Revieew of any law passed by the the political branches of government because that very power creates an OLIGARCHY of NINE.  The time for Judicial Tyrrany to end has come.  Justices are not gods - or kings-  so we should all stop worshipping their authority and alleged devine wisdom.