Comments on: Supreme Court ‘Supermajorities’ http://progressconservative.com/2008/07/19/supreme-court-supermajorities/ Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:45:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Ames http://progressconservative.com/2008/07/19/supreme-court-supermajorities/#comment-396 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:03:24 +0000 http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/?p=232#comment-396 Burrowowl, that’s a theory of originalism that would require breaking the entire law to resurrect, and while there’s some suggestion that it wasn’t “intended” to rule things unconstitutional, the “legislative history” of the Constitution, and the words of the Founders themselves, suggest the implicit if not explicit need for a branch to do judicial review of legislation.

As for the linked blog post, that’s a nice thought that underestimates and misperceives the role of the Supreme Court. If the role of the Court is to safeguard the Constitution – and you’re being generous with your assumptions about the benign electorate, so I’m going to be just as generous with the Court – the Constitution should always trump the people, even if a bare majority agrees that the Constitution so demands.

]]> By: Burrowowl http://progressconservative.com/2008/07/19/supreme-court-supermajorities/#comment-395 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:54:01 +0000 http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/?p=232#comment-395 From a strictly-originalist point of view, the Supreme Court does not have any authority to rule something unconstitutional. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the existence of the court, but not its purpose. Its role as constitutional watchdog is self-appointed. Judicial activism has a long history, going back to Marbury v. Madison.

]]>