Isn’t “judicial activism” a phony issue? Don’t both sides care more about the result than how it is reached?

“Judicial activism has become a code word for a result one doesn’t like. That’s too bad.” Heather Gerken

I’m going, as usual be very frank with you.  If we are going to have a Supreme Court then this court should be ‘completely impartial’.  However that’s never been the case.  Since the inception of the Supreme Court the members of that court have always showed their ‘partially’ in ever case that’s come before them.

The Framers of The US Constitution made few errors in forming that document and few errors in establishing the Unites States of America.  However the way the Supreme Court was established and the rules covering that court were not well thought out.

The idea of Supreme Court member serving on that court until they die or become so ill they can not serve is a grave error.  Allowing the POTUS to select court members is a grave error.  No oversight for the Supreme Court is a grave error.

Those three errors have allowed the Supreme Court to enforce their ‘interpretation of laws by edict’ and not by common sense or what the law actually says.  IMO, the most glaring error is the last one I listed.  No ‘oversight’ for the Supreme Court.  Once the court has ruled that’s it, you have no recourse except a constitutional amendment, and that’s a very rare event.

So you’re thinking, “Well duh that’s why its called the Supreme Court!” 

I respond with this.  “Well duh this is suppose to be a’federated republic not a bloody dictatorship by nine old crows sitting on a bench.”

Unless the issues I’ve listed with the Supreme Court  are addressed by, ‘We The People’, we’re going to be ruled not by those we have elected, but instead by those who were ‘appointed for life’ by those we elected.  Something is wrong with picture, but its not being addressed and won’t be addressed.