Democratic and Liberal political analysis and commentary

Good point about R's silence about legislating from the bench. It's funny how that only works one way.

The real irony in the "legislating from the bench" argument is that, especially for Constitutional issues, that is exactly what they should be doing. In cases involving interpretation of regular legislation they are the final arbiters and given the generally confused and conflicting nature of much of our legislation they are a vital interpretive force.

No decisions they make cannot be, essentially, overturned by rewriting the legislation in a more definitive fashion, addressing the exceptions the Court took or clarifying any ambiguities. It fits the original model.

Even more ironic is that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the right to "judicial review" (ruling on the Constitutionality of a law). That came about through precedence in Marbury v. Madison. If you get a chance read about the dilemma Justice Marshall faced and the written opinion. Fascinating stuff.

Is it not pathetic that if a Constitutional Convention were to be held today, with attendees chosen by our founding fathers, few in the current three branches of our government would be invited?

As I love conundrums, what happens if a Constitutional Amendment were passed by all the required players and then a challenge ensued in court meandering its way to the SCOTUS? Can they adjudicate the Amendment as un-Constitutional?