PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #21
Yet the SC found that the right was supported by the constitution. The court was packed to reverse that decision. Trump even admitted it was a requirement for consideration of his nomination.
The only job the Supreme Court was designed to commit to was comparing any bill to the words of the Constitution.
Other than that, they have no function.
That's what Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
. The brief writer’s version
[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
Now, admit you are thrilled that I am here to educate you.