Levin’s proposals are intended for discussion and debate.
The point made here is worthy of discussion and debate. The proposed provision seems unnecessary to me. I for one do not want Supreme Court decisions ever made irrevocable.
Or to sell books.
>>Levins proposals are intended for discussion and debate.
This is an important point.
Disagreement with one or several of Levin’s proposals doesn’t mean they are without merit or could not be improved. I think they are a step in the right direction.
Levin is a lawyer himself, and as a lawyer, I’d expect he might have a pro-judiciary branch bias. (I could be wrong. But in general we each see things from our own vantage point, colored by our own experiences. Personally, I see most lawyers and judges as corrupt, petty, biased, and as using the legal system to advance their personal agendas, punish those they dislike, and reward those they favor.)
But the point is, the path we have been on for a long time now is veering far from what the framers described in the Constitution. Levin’s suggestions, as a whole, are steps to rectify that.
They are worthy of serious consideration and debate. I may not agree 100% with every detail, but I’d rather adopt them all in order to drastically improve this country than to nitpick at them and allow us to be divided and thus let the socialists continue further on their path of destruction.