As an afterthought in a comment to DBHalling above, JA, you mentioned the amendment process as being an additional check on a wayward court, which seems to have generated no response. I find that unfortunate. Although it’s almost as unlikely that Congress would use Article V to reverse a Supreme Court decision as they would use it to, say, impose term limits on themselves, or mandate a balanced budget, the amendment process can be invoked by the state legislatures when a recalcitrant court and a fractious Congress fail to remedy the error, or when a juvenile Executive is too distracted to care.

I mention this not just because I am an ardent supporter of term limits for all elected or appointed federal officials as a means to diminish the damage done by self-serving career politicians, but also as a Rand fan…”The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.”

So, in answer your question above to CircuitGuy as to whether or not the Framers intended for this to be "the end of the matter"... No. They gave us Article V. We, the People, have a say in the matter.

PS: And, if I might add an afterthought of my own, for those who think that voting is enough, I would submit that "Broken Glass" conservatives have been doing that since Newt’s Republican Revolution, in record numbers, election cycle after election cycle, and arguably with greater conviction than at any time in modern history. I look around at the current political landscape and am forced to ask, “So, how’s that working out for us?”

That's an interesting idea for sure! It certainly would increase the workload for the courts, but I see nothing wrong with your idea in principle. As a practical matter I'm sure the elected members of Congress and the President would oppose it to the death, but so what? I can't help but note that your initial entry in this thread was highly critical of a particular Supreme Court decision. I mistakenly took that to mean you were an opponent of judicial review. It turns out you want universal judicial review. I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Right. Remember, however, that all of the hundreds of Article III federal judges have the power of judicial review and often exercise it. Unless that decision happens to make it to the Supreme Court (which very very few do) the decision stands. Such decisions are often cited as precedent in future cases. So the power of the lower court judges is very important.

yessir;;; I would appreciate judicial review of all laws,
regulations, executive orders, etc. upon enactment,
without some "harmed" party initiating the review! -- j

I was thinking of the Supreme Court Justices

Your theory is not supported by a plain reading of the language of the Constitution which assigns no need for motive to a vetoing executive, but there may be some historical evidence affirming your view in the writings or debate comments of individual delegates to the convention. Or in the Federalist Papers. Be that as it may, My hypothetical was meant to imply that the President signed the offering legislation. And, in any event, what of the situation where a veto is overridden by Congress. Did the framers intend for that to be the end of the matter with no recourse to the courts to overturn the unconstitutional law?

I applaud your political activism, but this is all beside the point of this thread. The issue is whether judicial review is a pro or anti freedom mechanism. I hold that on balance it is a good thing and is often responsible for thwarting unconstitutional measures passed by the congress and executive. Does anyone disagree and, if so, on what grounds?

Actually, there have been hundreds of congressional impeachment investigations, dozens of impeachments and about 8 or so convictions in the Senate of federal judges. There have been no convictions of Supreme Court justices.

"If Congress were to pass legislation banning comments on the internet that criticized the government and assessed criminal penalties for making such comments whose job is it to declare such a law unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment and therefore void?"
I heard in middle school history (so it may not be true) that the original purpose of the presidential veto was to fight unconstitutional laws. It was not intended, according to what I heard, to stop law the president disagreed with.

And impeachment which has never been used

I forgot another obvious check on the Supreme Court when it makes a bad constitutional decision: The Amendment process. Sorry.

I am not familiar with the patent decision to which you refer, but I will stipulate that Courts make mistakes and, in theory, can make plenty of them. The only checks in that regard are: (i) the appointment process (which involves the two other branches in the federal system); (ii) the multiple appellate levels (which is irrelevant if the Supreme Court is making the error); and (iii) impeachment (which only applies where a crime is involved). None of these work where a rogue Supreme Court acts adversely to freedom and the Constitution on a frequent or ongoing basis. I would argue, however, that a Congress run amok is much more dangerous (Congress does not need a case or controversy in front of it to screw things up). Moreover, while you cite a particular Court decision you do not like, I'll bet you could cite hundreds of bad laws, many of which were struck down by the Court. And don't forget the in terrorem effect of the existence of the judicial review process. By that I mean even our most venial legislators sometimes hesitate to put one of their schemes in place because it is likely to be sticken down by judicial review. But in the end, of course, you are correct that freedom cannot be secured "for a population that does not want it or does not understand it. This is ultimately a battle of ideas." My only point is that abandoning a procedure which on balance does secure freedom is not a good idea.

I don't just rail, I vote -- and for those who would
adhere to the constitution, both in congress and
in the executive branch (what little vote I have, there)
where justices are appointed... for life. I guess that
I should ride my Harley to D.C. and drive around town
with a "Don't Tread On Me" flag on it. . or maybe
a little outhouse on the back? . (obama presidential
library -- remember.) -- j

p.s. https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+ou...

What if the Supreme Court changes the law in one of their opinions to be unconsitutional as they did with patent laws? Who is going to protect us. The reason for 3 branches of government is a check an balance. When one branch decides they are the final arbiter they the system of checks and balances falls apart.

No amount of procedural rules will secure freedom for a population that does not want it or does not understand it. This is ultimately a battle of ideas.

The comments above underscore the problem. One person challenges Marbury v. Madison which established the doctrine of judicial review (the Court's power to declare a legislative act unconstitutional and void) and another admonishes the Court for not declaring a particular piece of legislation unconstitutional! It comes down to this: If Congress were to pass legislation banning comments on the internet that criticized the government and assessed criminal penalties for making such comments whose job is it to declare such a law unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment and therefore void? The Courts (as Chief Justice Marshall thought) or Congress itself (as President Jefferson thought)? What do you think the chances are that Congress would make such a declaration concerning a law it just passed? Hint: zero. Or perhaps you think that neither branch should have that power. If so, you have just endorsed in practice an unlimited government and made the Constitution a complete dead letter (as opposed to the admittedly weak limitation on power it has evolved into). If you don't like the current system, please feel free to suggest a better structure, but don't simply rail against one of the few limitations on the legislative branch that we presently have.

don't we have a problem with the supreme court
failing to maintain the defense of the constitution?
like traitor Roberts' abdication of his role in limiting
the executive during obamacare review??? -- j

Indeed. And it seems that there's no corrective action available. But the book looks like it might be a credible read.

It is a huge problem. 1st of all an objectivist and the founding fathers did not put their hopes for securing our Natural Rights with any one branch of government.

The first act of Judicial Activism goes all the way back to Madison v Marbury 1803 when the Sup. Ct. said they were the arbiter of what is constitutional. This is not found anywhere in the constitution. The Sup. Ct. has not necessarily been a great protector of Individual Rights.

The civil war era saw an expansion of Judicial Activism and the first court packing in the Legal Tender cases. But the Sup. Ct also altered patent law around this time to eternal detriment of that body of law.

After the court packing by FDR both conservatives and liberal justices deferred to Congress on matters of economic legislation. Neither group correctly interprets the Constitution based on our founding principles.