Bork and Roberts
I was listening to Judge Robert Bork a few weeks ago (and got upset at Teddy Kennedy all over again that this man is not on the Supreme Court). Bork made a great point in reference to judicial review. He commented that if the Supreme Court rules that a statute is unConstitutional, the remedy is that a state legislature or Congress can re-write the statute (though I flinch that a state legislature needs to be beholden to the Supremes as we have a federal not a national constitution...at least up until the 14th Amendment).
However, how does a bad ruling on the Constitution by the Supremes get remedied? Judge Bork pointed out that there was only one way- by the Supreme Court revisiting the decision. No legislative action can reverse a bad Supreme Court decision on the Constitution. Consider what state of afairs would exist in America were the Dred Scott decision not revisited? Or Plessy vs. Ferguson (the separate but equal case)?
So, we have this from Supreme court nominee Roberts: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/2/202839.shtml .
Left wing ideologues on the bench have no compunction against revisiting any decision. But strict constructionists seem quite reluctant to erase the past sins of the their fellow judges.
And I'm therefore concerned in light of the NewsMax story.