General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show - [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I see no evidence that the creators of the Constitution intended for all laws passed to be set in stone and, indeed, able to contradict the constitution itself. Can you make a law that says you cannot be equal? Well the states did with their segregation laws. The SCOTUS shot those laws down.
The SOCTUS did not magically endow itself with those powers as those powers are clearly and unambiguously stated in Article III of the Constitution. No reading of the language in Article III implies, suggests, or indicates that they do not have those powers. Given that Supreme Court justices can be impeached, they are not "kings and queens." If they make a faulty decision outside of American opinion Congress could quite easily oust them. That's the ironic part here, Thom is advocating a kind of cronyism whereby citizens decide the rule of law against a minority.
So you can envision a scenario where SOCTUS judges rule against segregation and then the people elect Congress members who then impeach the judges and segregation is then legalized by the new racist appointments.
The key here is that such a scenario is unlikely because of how the system is set up. They put in enough checks and balances to make it more unlikely than if we had a monarchy, for example.
BTW, cute that you quote Robert Yates, one aligned with the Confederates.
It's not hard to see how this line of thought turns right wing to the core, again, and again, and again.