- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
At the time, many americans were against judicial review, but the Justices are not subject to people's opinions. And the adoption of judicial review was a result of Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison--it had nothing to do with the perception that it is too difficult to amend the constitution.
I was referring more to the expansion of government power since the Civil War (and especially since the Great Depression) based on activist interpretations of the Constitution, not judicial review in general.
other said:No, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Not if people actually hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices--and congress for confirming them. note: activists judges tend to be liberal (living, breathing constitution, etc).
Every justice on the Supreme Court - and every federal judge in the United States - is an "activist" compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Liberal AND conservative.
Furthermore, whether or not people "hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices" does not change the fact that our government would still be based on the world of 1789, if you want to preserve the cumbersome amendment process AND use an originalist interpretation.