Another person gets with the program

I've been saying for years (including at least once on this very blog, where I set out my proposal for a new Constitutional amendment) that I think there's a gaping hole in the Constitutional checks and balances system, because the Constitution doesn't put a check or balance on the Supreme Court's power of judicial review as established in Marbury v. Madison. To be quite frank, I think there is no check on this power precisely because the Constitution doesn't grant the Supreme Court any such power, and the Supremes usurped it to begin with.

At any rate, since we seem to be stuck with M v. M, well, fine, then -- but you have to have checks on the Supremes' power. I think they ought to get kicked off the Court after ten years. And I think a super-majority of Congress ought to be able to overturn any Supreme Court decision with the approval of the President. And finally I think that judicial activisim -- by which I mean, appealing to any authority other than that of the Constitution and the laws of this nation, and especially appealing to one's own "personal experience" or to "international law" -- ought to be grounds for impeachment.

Now, here's somebody else who thinks we need a Constitutional amendment to allow the other branches to overrule the Supreme Court.

We may get the bastards under control yet.