[justshutupandtakeit]

Judicial review was assumed by the founders and Hamilton, for one, had been involved in one of the major cases of judicial review by a local court in NY, Rutgers v. Weddington. It would be impossible to have a Law of the Land without jr.

[goldstategop]

That was to limit the powers of the federal government vs. the states. The Framers wanted to ensure the elected branches of government could not assume more power than the Constitution granted them. This was the original intent of judicial review. Now, if that's all it was, no one would now seek to get rid of it. Since that time, its been changed and disfigured into an instrument of liberal supremacy over the interests of society. Since liberals can't win elections at the ballot box, they rely increasingly on judges to muscle through their agenda for them. Judicial review is then, no longer about limiting government power but about ensuring liberal ideology is victorious in the law even when its rejected by the voters. That's why its got to go.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)