Alternatives to Judicial Supremacy

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

I think Bob is absolutely  correct.  Since the term "activism" is not 
generally explicated in an  analytically helpful manner, it's used as a pejorative 
term by both  conservatives and liberals.  Indeed, I'm often it  is dumbfounded 
why principled constitutional  conservatives and principled constitutional 
liberals do not unite against a  practice which almost everyone, even its 
staunchest defenders, recognizes on  some level to be problematic in a republican 
democracy. Given this united  complaint (although aimed at different decisions) 
why isn't exploring  alternatives to judicial supremacy one of the primary 
research interests of  legal scholars. Political scientists may have a wider range 
of issues to explore  in American government.  But law professors are stuck, 
it seems to be, with  the courts. (I'm careful not to say: "The courts, all 
the courts, and nothing  but the courts.")
 
        For Bob, how's this for starters: congressional  overrides, executive 
overrides, councils of revision; impeaching justices;  recalling justices; 
electing justices; a periodic re-appointment procedure;  referenda; random and 
temporary selection of appellate judges to serve as  justices on the Court; 
formal term limits or informal incentives such as  attractive retirement 
packages; and congressional standing to challenge any  attempt to strike down a 
congressional statute, and congressional recalls of  justices. I'd welcome additions 
to this  list. 
 
Bobby

Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060904/d9a25eb3/attachment.html