Interesting discussion. Reading Marbury v. Madison is an interesting exercise that will leave you scratching your head what he meant. In a way this was one of the first shots fired in the eternal battle between the three branches of government.
One of the beauties of our system is that each branch has weapons at its disposal, provided they have the guts to use them. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction can be cut back by the Congress, and the lower federal courts are not even required to exist. I don't believe the issue has ever arisen, but it is a good question if the Court would have the right to review a law that withdrew jurisdiction over an issue.
The First Amendment's religious freedom clauses have been a continuing source of intellectual quicksand for the Court. For much of the Nation's history, these two clauses were understood only to prohibit the establishment of a federal church or religion (states were allowed todo that, with some exceptions) and religious qualifications for office or employment. When the Warren Court started trying to recreate America in the liberal image, one of the first targets was religious expression. In a series of cases the Court adopted out of whole cloth a vague and unworkable series of tests for excessive state entagnlement in religion, leading to such idiotic disputes as whether or not a judge can display the Ten Commandments.
You are free to agree or disagree with the specific issue regarding school prayer, graduation prayers, football locker room prayers, creches, Ten Commandments, etc but the real issue is why a self-governing people cannot be allowed to resolve such issues at the local level through the democratic process. At worst, someone may feel vaguely excluded or whatever. In a pluralistic society, it is inevitable that someone is at the margin. To me that is a far better solution than having every aspect of our daily lives micro-managed by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.
One of the beauties of our system is that each branch has weapons at its disposal, provided they have the guts to use them. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction can be cut back by the Congress, and the lower federal courts are not even required to exist. I don't believe the issue has ever arisen, but it is a good question if the Court would have the right to review a law that withdrew jurisdiction over an issue.
The First Amendment's religious freedom clauses have been a continuing source of intellectual quicksand for the Court. For much of the Nation's history, these two clauses were understood only to prohibit the establishment of a federal church or religion (states were allowed todo that, with some exceptions) and religious qualifications for office or employment. When the Warren Court started trying to recreate America in the liberal image, one of the first targets was religious expression. In a series of cases the Court adopted out of whole cloth a vague and unworkable series of tests for excessive state entagnlement in religion, leading to such idiotic disputes as whether or not a judge can display the Ten Commandments.
You are free to agree or disagree with the specific issue regarding school prayer, graduation prayers, football locker room prayers, creches, Ten Commandments, etc but the real issue is why a self-governing people cannot be allowed to resolve such issues at the local level through the democratic process. At worst, someone may feel vaguely excluded or whatever. In a pluralistic society, it is inevitable that someone is at the margin. To me that is a far better solution than having every aspect of our daily lives micro-managed by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.