The Morning Rant

DISORDER IN THE COURT

But now every social issue somehow winds up before SCOTUS and we all are forced to live with whatever it is they decide.

The principle of judicial review was established by the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, wherein the question of who gets to determine whether or not a law is constitutional was answered "the Supreme Court" by the Supreme Court. Even though it was apparently not recognized at that time, that was when the United States no longer had a federal goverment consisting of three separate but equal branches, but rather one with two equal branches and one sitting on top of them both. And again, this is not something the founders ever had in mind.

The problem is that an explicit procedure for judicial review was not written into the constitution. I'm not sure why, perhaps the founder didn't think it needed one. Or it was something they just didn't get around to deciding because other issues were more pressing. For example, the issue of compulsory quartering of soldiers in private citizen' homes rankled them so much (since it wa a common enough injustice they had all witnessed) that they specially included an amendment (the 3rd) forbidding it. But nothing about judicial review. Seems odd to me, but that's probably because I'm almost three centuries removed, and nobody now living has any memory of it.

Anyway, if we think that the judiciary was never intended to be the preeminent branch of government, and that we, the people, should be the ultimate deciders concerning how we are to be governed, not an 'elite' group called judges, what can we do about it?

For one thing, I think we need to take jury duty seriously. The way most people (myself included) talk about it, it is something to be avoided, since it interferes with our daily lives. But since it provides direct opportunity to interact with the judicial branch, we should instead embrace jury duty, and try to be the best damn jurors we can. Also, jury nullifcation. I must confess I'm a little bit hesitant about this, because once we start using it, the woke mob will eventually catch on, and turn every jury trial into a tribal slap fight, but it may be worth doing nonetheless. Because I don't think the woke mob is as numerous as they're trying to get everyone (and themselves) to believe, even in blue states.

Also, it would help if we would stop electing corrupt, lying sleazebags to high office. Everybody complains about the low quality of our elected officials, but we keep electing them, so we're kind of punching ourselves in the face here.

But I have an idea.

As I said earlier, I believe the founders held that it is the people who should be ultimately decide how we are to be governed. So having 9 judges telling us "this is the law because we say it is, so shut up!" sounds antithetical to that principle. So I propose an constitutional amendment whereby the people and the states would be given the right to tell SCOTUS to take their ruling and stuff it. This is not something that would be easy to do. It would be similar to the constitutional amendment process. The act to nullify a SCOTUS decision would have to be ratified by some sort of supermajority of states by both the House and Senate, with maybe a special election in each state for the people to determine how the state would vote. Obviously, there would be many details to work out, but this would be our ultimate breakwall against the rising tide of judicial tyranny.

Now, will this fix everything? No, certainly not. There are a number of underlying issues still unresolved, not the least of which is we no longer agree what government is ultimately for. Our founders believed that government's main, if not only, job was to guarantee our liberties as free citizens. But I think many people believe that its job is to guarantee our safety. Which is kind of true, insofar as we're talking about crime and foreign invasion, but some have gone far beyond this and want protection from the vicissitudes of life. This is why the Covid Karens like to shout "Your freedom is not more important than my safety" at us. They expect something no government is able to give them. It is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference in worldviews.

It Didn't Go Over Well The First Time The Dems Tried It:

How It Started:

How It's Going:

Karen McKaren Is Unhappy With Us:

Based:

WEF Guy #1: "Sir, they're not eating bugs like we want them to. What do we do?"
WEF Guy #2: "Shout louder and insult them. That always works":

Late, But Very Strong, Entry For 'Dumbest Tweet Of 2021':

Tater Gets Fact Checked:

Harsh, But Fair:

Who Dis:

For the 'Ettes:

Wednesday Who Dis: Actress/singer Zooey Deschanel stars with Jake Johnson in the Fox comedy New Girl.

Today's Edition Of The Morning Rant Is Brought To You By Texas Birthday Cake:

Bonus Miracle:

Baby hearing for the first time gives a smile that’ll make your day 👍

pic.twitter.com/ffxr8bNI4g

— Kevin W. (@Brink_Thinker) December 3, 2021

posted by OregonMuse at 11:17 AM

| Access Comments