[QUOTE=Charleylake]Mark R. Levin, a New York constitutional lawyer, in his new book “Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America” commends two solutions to the problem he poses. First, to prescribe term limts, instead of life terms, for federal judges, especialy the supremes. Second, he advocates an amendment to the constitution that would permit Congress to overturn a court decision by a super-majority - just as they can overturn a presidential veto. He also predicts that if the Democrats continue to obstruct confirmation of Bush’s judicial appointments, the Republicans will change the rules of the senate to permit a simple majority (as was the case until 1949).
He makes a good case that the courts have usurped the powers of the legislative branch, and I heartily agree, though I believe that appointing judges that base their decisions on the constitution, rather than foreign law, their own agenda or beliefs, etc. would cure that problem.

I only read the subject. I’m not going to read all the other stuff because I don’t agree that the Supreme Court should be fooled with at all. Liberal American is just scared GWB is going to appoint some conservative judges and they fear what could happen to all of their liberal causes.

I dont beleive it is the intent of the constitution to give legislative and executive powers to the judicial branch. I dont think it was the intent to give the judicial branch the power to override the will of the people, as they do when they reverse jury rulings. or even public elections.

The filibuster is a political tactic, not envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I would strongly assert. Here were men faced with birthing a nation, who believed they were creating a higher form of representative govt. The filibuster defeats representative govt. It allows the minority to abuse the process and exercise power over the majority. It is clearly an illegitimate legislative tactic which should be abolished. If the tables were turned and the Reps were in the minority, the Dems would howl. And rightfully so. A filibuster is used by a vociferous minority that believes, wrongly, that they are right regardless of the wishes and the votes of the majority. To have a true representative govt, the minority must respect the wishes of the people.

I believe that Dems have become disillusioned by Clinton’s presidency, who never achieved a majority of the popular vote - the only president in history with this distinction. They seem to believe they have a right to impose their minority opinion over the majority vote. Govt., largely, establishes values and priorities through legislation, spending priorities, etc. It should reflect the values of the majority, should it not? Just because the minority feels strongly about abortion, stem cell research, affirmative action, whatever, it does not give them the right to defeat representative govt and impose their views on the majority.
Listen, accept, compromise. Find commonal ground, not differences, not conflict.

[QUOTE=Honest Discussion]The filibuster is a political tactic, not envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I would strongly assert. Here were men faced with birthing a nation, who believed they were creating a higher form of representative govt. The filibuster defeats representative govt. It allows the minority to abuse the process and exercise power over the majority. It is clearly an illegitimate legislative tactic which should be abolished. If the tables were turned and the Reps were in the minority, the Dems would howl. And rightfully so. A filibuster is used by a vociferous minority that believes, wrongly, that they are right regardless of the wishes and the votes of the majority. To have a true representative govt, the minority must respect the wishes of the people.

I believe that Dems have become disillusioned by Clinton’s presidency, who never achieved a majority of the popular vote - the only president in history with this distinction. They seem to believe they have a right to impose their minority opinion over the majority vote. Govt., largely, establishes values and priorities through legislation, spending priorities, etc. It should reflect the values of the majority, should it not? Just because the minority feels strongly about abortion, stem cell research, affirmative action, whatever, it does not give them the right to defeat representative govt and impose their views on the majority.
Listen, accept, compromise. Find commonal ground, not differences, not conflict.

And fillibustering, to me, is “fools gold.” Meaning you may stop a program or two by it. But if you consistently stand in the way of progress and offer no alternatives, voters will rebel against that. I mean, what DO the Democrats stand for?

(sound of crickets chirping....)

Thank God he can only write a book and not rewrite the constitution. That’s exactly why the Framers set it up this way, to remove the possibility of the Tyranny of the Majority.

[QUOTE=NOLA democrat]Charley:
Please share with me some Supreme Court decisions that you find are problematic and in your view represent judges swaying from the Constitution and the laws of the land and instead invoking their own opinions/beliefs and usurping the Congress power.

How about the latest: eliminating the ability of states to execute juveniles for heinous crimes?