Replies

The author also mentioned impeachment. I have long argued that this is the most appropriate and underused punishment for tyrannical judges. Passing more laws or amendments to curb their behavior is the same thinking that drives gun control legislation. The senate would be key to the conviction of tyrannical judges but without a political class willing to defend liberty, I am not hopeful. It seems that most politicians writhe with glee every time a court decision gives government more power at the expense of our liberty. Where are the politicians running against judicial tyranny with a promise of real punishment for the offenders?

Where are the politicians running against judicial tyranny with a promise of real punishment for the offenders?

I've run a couple of times on that exact platform. Been pretty much ignored though, even around here.

The Framers’ system worked well until 1913, when it was horribly amended. Before 1913, Scotus rarely overturned state laws. The reason was that the senators who consented to judicial appointments also worked for just a few hundred state legislators. There was a semi-uneasy tension and respect between federal judges and a congress that had the power of the purse over them. Wise senators intent on keeping their jobs kept a close eye on the mood of their bosses, and consenting to anti-10th amendment progressives was a sure way to become unemployed.

Impeachment and follow on trials of judges were hardly necessary before the 17th Amendment. Checks and balances worked. They haven't since the 17th.

No impeachments of either judges or high Obama officials will happen because it isn't in the personal, electoral interest of individual senators. Say “impeachment,” and a world of hurt will fall on the errant senator.

The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like the 17th itself. Like the people, states are members of our constitutional republic and MUST have a seat at the legislative table.