Actually, I just cited it. I wouldn't consider my posting either an endorsement nor a critique.
I will admit, however, I do, generally, agree with the sentiment. However, it did strike me as an odd time to make the statement.
While I have conerns, serious ones, about various court decisions, I simply don't see the tyranny of the judiciary that you see.
Tyranny's a pretty strong word, and I don't think I'd use it.
I do think, however, that:
-- The courts don't function in the consitutional scheme of things the way the founders intended;
-- The courts are getting awfully far afield from the Constitution itself. Consider the parlor game in which one person tries to tell the next a story told him by the previous person. At the end of the line, the story bears no resemblance to the original version. In the courts' case, each telling is a precedent that was a slight departure from the Constitution. We're at the point in the game where the courts don't seem to know the original story.
-- The correctives the founders left us -- limiting jurisdiction and impeachment -- are so seldom used that they've become vestigial appendages.
-- The corrective I suggest, the retention election, is a mild one. But I think it would serve as a jolt to the judiciary. It's said that judges read the election returns. I think they would better comprehend the news if the election returns were their own.
Commenting by HaloScan
