Supreme court to powerful

**Montell C. Williams** · October 11th, 2007, 07:38 AM

They have absolute power, they can interpert the constitution any way they want. They invent rights nowhere in the const. and deny others that are, they can interpret yes as meaning no, up as meaning down or anything else they want and there is no appeal or way to overturn their decision.

I think a 2/3 vote of the house and senate should be able to reverse a Supreme Court decision, other wise they are the actual rulers of the country, not the people or thier elected represinitives.

You hear it said that the constution is an evolving document and can be interpreted to fit the times, well a document that doesn't mean what the words in it say is worthless, the way to change the constution is by amendment voted on by 2/3 of the congress and 2/3 of the states, not 5 to 4 vote of unelected judges who may have their own social or political intrest at heart.

**markheck1** · October 11th, 2007, 08:08 AM

Legislation from the Bench.....not quite what our founders had in mind, I think

**knight0334** · October 11th, 2007, 08:18 AM

They are powerful for sure, but there is a reason. They are supposed to represent the Constitution directly, where as Congress and Executive officials attempt to skirt it.

I dont care what jackass says what, the Constitution is not a living document. The writers and framers of the Constitution meant only a certain thing when penning it. When they wrote "state", they meant "state".. "militia" meant "militia", not "national guard".

The meaning to nearly all the words of the Constitution have changed very little. "infringe" still means what it meant then.

The problem is with a 2/3 over-ride is that Congress doesn't care about constitutionality. They will write a law, vote & pass it, send it to the Pres to sign, he signs it - even if it is 1000% unconstitutional. If Congress could over-ride the Justice's declaration, then they could re-instate an unconstitutional law. bad mojo.. The only way for a judicial over-ride to be safe for us the people would be a 100% of Congress, a Presidential "yay", and 75% of the registered voter's in referendum to do it.

The present checks and balances system is the closest to utopia on earth.

An amendment to the Constitution requires 3/4's of the states' approval.

**D-FENS** · October 11th, 2007, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Montell C. Williams

I think a 2/3 vote of the house and senate should be able to reverse a Supreme Court decision,

That's called a Constitutional Amendment

Originally Posted by Montell C. Williams

the way to change the constution is by amendment voted on by 2/3 of the congress and 2/3 of the states,

Um, the Congress represents the states. That's why they're there. That's what the Constitution is about for the most part. The States giving up popular voting rights to the Federal Government in the form of Representatives and Senators. Representatives represent the people and Senators represent the State.

What would be the point of having a popular vote in each state when they already do that to elect their representatives and senators?

Judges don't invent laws. They interpret them. Even if one is retarded, there are 4 others needed for a majority decision. Your disappointment with our current Judges is a reflection of our voting prowess as a nation. If it's that important to you, consider trying to educate your family, rally, protest, etc to convey your point. Hopefully if you convince enough people, we'll vote in a President that isn't corrupt and retarded and one that will appoint knowledgeable Judges to the SCOTUS.

On the other hand, you can always run for President yourself and then you can appoint judges to your own liking. Just keep in mind, the judges we have now are little more than a reflection of the Presidents we've voted into office.