One option is to follow the lead of pro-Palestinian orgs working to end the genocide. You have more power than any other global citizen believe it or not.
I believe I quoted FDR earlier in this thread, so it's been self evident for nearly a century at the very least. And the fact the court folded when pressed is telling.
Of course they flip flop, every reasonable person forms an opinion based on the information available at the time, and that can change.
The constitution isn't interpreted based on new information, it's interpreted based on ideology. "Constitutional review" is an empty vessel that can be used to allow or disallow any law imaginable.
Legislators should run the legislature, and judges should run the judiciary. There's no need to mix branches.
The court could exist for 1,000 years and you can scream "fantasy" at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't change the fact it can be undone in a single day, unilaterally by a single president.
Congress writes laws, the president signs them. What's confusing about that?
Constitutional review is a farce. Look how often they flip flop,
school segregation laws are disallowed (Brown (1954)) or to say that school desegregation laws are disallowed (Parents Involved (2007)). You can use it to say laws restricting voting rights are disallowed (Harper (1966)) or to say that the Voting Rights Act is disallowed (Shelby County (2013)). You can use it to say laws restricting contraception are disallowed (Griswold (1965)) or to say that laws requiring insurance to cover contraception are disallowed (Burwell (2014)).
Things that were once allowed by the Supreme Court can later be disallowed. So at one point, you can say that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell (2003)) and then say they are disallowed (Citizens United (2010)). You can say that fair share fees for public sector unions are allowed (Abood (1977)) and then say they are disallowed (Janus (2018)).
The supreme court is an ideological institution, and a regressive one at that. Constitutional review can end tomorrow with a simple declaration by the president.
If we had a young, healthy, 8-1 liberal supreme court, marbury would be overturned by the first republican president.
This old "fantasy land" critique of left-wing policy is so boring and limiting.
Fighting for better healthcare or working toward poverty reduction is no more or less "fantasy" than plugging away at a spreadsheet for a weapons manufacturer or venture capital firm.
There has to be a branch of government separate from the authors and the enforcers of the laws that can, with authority, strike down unconstitutional laws.
No there doesn't. Many country's top courts are advisory, the power of America's supreme court is comparably regressive and undemocratic. Not to mention unconstitutional.
It's definitely within the president's unilateral power to end the court on day 1. Here's how,
All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.
One option is to follow the lead of pro-Palestinian orgs working to end the genocide. You have more power than any other global citizen believe it or not.