There is a move to overturn the most important and wide ranging Supreme Court Decision ever made. Not Roe v. Wade, not Brown v. Board of Education. No, the one that the left wants to overturn is Marbury v. Madison.
Marbury was the most important decision ever made by SCOTUS, because it was that decision that gave us judicial review. That case established for the first time that federal courts had the power to overturn an act of Congress on the ground that it violated the U.S. Constitution. The left wants to do away with that, and I think that I know why, but before I explain that, let’s look at why I think this is the left’s latest target. Read from the report itself (pdf alert):
What is the category of decisions to which the Court should be more deferential? Is the concern that the Court exercises too much power just about the invalidation of Acts of Congress, or does it extend to the much more common instances in which the Court declares unconstitutional the actions of states or local
governments?
Those two forms of judicial review raise significantly different issues, but both implicate the power of the Court to overturn enactments by democratically elected bodies. In addition, the Court exercises power over the other branches of the federal government in ways apart from its constitutional holdings. The Court interprets federal statutes and can declare unlawful the actions of executive branch agencies. Though these decisions, unlike constitutional holdings, can in principle be overturned by legislation, in practice the difficulty of enacting legislation routinely means that what the Court says is the last word.
Perhaps the more fundamental question — the one that has attracted so much discussion for so long is when deference is justified and when it is not. In prominent cases, the Court has intervened to try to protect racial or religious minorities or political dissidents from the abusive actions of majorities. If the Court were to adopt a posture of across-the -board
deference, it would no longer play that role . But some critics of the Court assert that greater deference would be worth it, that the gains from those celebrated decisions are outweighed by the instances in which the Court has prevented democratically -elected branches of government from serving the nation’s interests, including by recognizing and protecting individual rights and the rights of minority and disadvantaged groups.
Page 26 of the report, emphasis added by Divemedic
Read those bolded parts. What the commission, and by extension the left, is trying to say is that they don’t want SCOTUS overruling the other branches of government. They want a government that is no longer constrained by the Constitution. Without a Supreme Court ruling that certain acts and laws are not Constitutional, the legislative and executive branches would no longer be constrained by our founding documents.
Since we all know that elections don’t mean shit and have been gamed, cutting the courts out of our government would be handing the keys of our nation over to the communist dictators that currently run the Democratic party.
Packing the court would likely be seen by Suzie Soccermom as a power grab, drawing the ire of the general public. Removing the power of the court to overturn unconstitutional edicts would be obscure enough that America’s inability to grasp legal nuance and to read a story that is more than a paragraph long would likely pass without complaint.
That is the real danger: A Democratic party unrestrained by the ballot box, the Constitution, or a Supreme Court.
