Replies

Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court either original or appellate jurisdiction on all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc. and so forth. To the Supreme Court. Not Congress. Not the President.

And when the courts exceed their authority in their rulings (Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), are the other two branches to just stand by and allow such perversions of the law?

In the first case, the courts did not exceed their authority in either of those cases. In the second case, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution that supercede any decision the Supreme Court may hand down and, if passed, send them to the states for ratification.

Who is to hold bad judges accountable? Why is there a remedy of impeachment of bad judges?

There is a remedy of impeachment for judges for misbehavior. However, your disagreeing with their decisions does not constitute bad behavior.

In the first case, the courts did not exceed their authority in either of those cases.

Let me get this straight: You don't think that sanctioning the murder of unborn babies is exceeding their authority (Roe & Doe)? How about newborn babies - would that convince you? You don't think that the right to life trumps the right to privacy? Let's see you defend that position logically and morally. You agree with Taney's court (Dred Scott) that a black man is 3/5 of a person (a clear denial of the bedrock principle that "all men are created equal" the founders did not say this - they used non-citizen slaves as a means to formulate populations for purposes of representation). You believe that "sodomy" is a constiutional right (Lawrence v. Texas) - where is it?

In the second case, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution that supercede any decision the Supreme Court may hand down and, if passed, send them to the states for ratification.

Tell me, what does a bad judge have to do in your opinion to warrant his removal by impeachment? Inquiring minds want to know.

The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day. Joseph Story

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constituion of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. Thomas Jefferson

Refusing or not refusing to execute a law to stamp it with its final character...makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper. James Madison

[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. Thomas Jefferson

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government. Thomas Jefferson

To me, the remedy for bad rulings (legislating form the bench) from bad judges is simple - DEFIANCE by the other two brances. What can the despots in black robes do if the Congress and/or the President refuse to honor their bad rulings? There is a higher law than the Supreme Court - the Law of Nature's God.

The courts have no business legislating (e.g. Sodomy, racial quotas, etc.). Scalia's dissent clearly stated that Lawrence decision was legislating - CONSTITUTIONAL TABOO!. So, it's okay for the courts to legislate, but the Congress exercising its oath to the Constitution is verboten? I smell a double standard.

[N-S] Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court either original or appellate jurisdiction on all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc. and so forth.

U.S. Const. Art 3, Sect 2, Cl 2, "In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."