Use Article 3!
Congress, and state legislatures, re-capture their legislative authority?
Why is this important?
The Solution is Simple.
Contrary to popular belief the supreme Court is NOT a co-equal branch of government. That propaganda was contrived and perpetrated by media, and in schools, by lawyers and judges. Read the Constitution. The Court is supposed to serve under control of our elected representatives. Instead, judges claim final approval (judicial review) over every action and word in government and in our private lives. Court opinions are NOT the "Law of the Land" at all. Only legislatures can make laws. A supreme Court decision is a ruling that is binding only on the parties involved in the case, and enforceable only if the executive and legislative branches choose to enforce it.
Article 3 of the Constitution mandates that Congress establish the parameters under which a supreme Court will function. Constitutional framer James Madison's Federalist Papers make it very clear the branches are to be separate and distinct. Nowhere does he or anyone else say equal.
Generally, state constitutions, like Florida's, allow only one exception to the separation principle The Attorney General is allowed to serve in the Executive branch as well as the Judicial Branch - lawyers are officers of the court and not allowed to simultaneously serve as Legislators or Executive officers (but Judges fail to enforce that concept).
Congress evaded it's responsibility to govern the courts, allowing renegade courts to arrogate (seize with false pretention) power unto themselves. The United States is now governed by an oligarchy of black-robe judges that arrogantly dictate what the law is, as they twist and mangle the law and legislative intent to fit their own agenda. Sometimes Congress allows this to happen because unaccountable courts will "take the heat" when Congress doesn't want to.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes egotistically declared "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the Court says it is." Most law schools would back him up. Did you know that one does not have to be a lawyer to be a judge? In fact, most judges in the Founders time were ORDAINED clergy. Today, lawyers are trained to follow myths and rules that have no basis in law. An example is lifetime appointment - the Constitution specifically says "during good behavior".. Several justices have been booted for cussing in court, drunkenness, and ignoring an act of Congress. But that is no longer enforced.
There is no provision in the Constitution authorizing courts to INTERPRET laws. They are supposed to APPLY laws to the facts of a particular case.
The Constitution was designed to protect citizens from overbearing government. But we lost our constitutional republic. Legislatures have timidly given up their constitutional authority to a bevy of power-hungry lawyers determined to surreptitiously transform American society into one that neither recognizes nor follows the founding principles that propelled us to fundamental honesty, unprecedented freedom, prosperity, and world dominance. Instead, some courts cite contrary laws in other countries.
By way of compromise, here is a simpler solution that will stop the tyranny of imperious judges who openly live for an opportunity to "make law" that is clearly NOT their job."
1. Require judges decisions to follow ORIGINAL INTENT. Eliminate Case Law (precedent that bases decisions on what prior courts have said a/k/a Stare Decisis). Hold people accountable under the law as originally written. Stacking precedents one upon the other takes us far from the law as written, and is like stacking law books - each error destabilizes the stack until it collapses.
2. Restrict judges from INTERPRETING the law. As originally done, just APPLY the written law to the case at hand. According to a reliable established principle, laws that require interpretation are Void for Vagueness. When vague, the legislature needs to go back to work and be more specific.
3. Require judges to disclose, and recuse when conflicts of interest arise.
Laws get passed following weeks, sometimes months, of debate about the pros, cons, and nuances. This documents the legislative intent, and all sides thoroughly discuss and modify the proposal. Then you see the true will of the people through their elected representatives. Earliest (closest to enactment) court decisions used to enjoy more weight, now it is the later ones that dominate, accelerating us into chaos. Later decisions are increasingly subject to corruption as judges pick precedents they personally like. If a law needs changing, go thru the essential debate and legislative process protections.
By contrast, the supreme Court hears only ONE hour of presentation by each side! Then they pontificate from their ivory tower debating society, decreeing how the rest of us must act and think.Congress must invoke it's Article 3 responsibilities and force all courts to FOLLOW THE LAW, not wander among corrupt warped precedents where judges pick and choose among which precedents they want to follow, and encourage cunning lawyers to carve out little nuances to benefit their client.
If you ever filed a lawsuit or defense, you discover that more than 75% of lawyers fees go to researching conflicting precedents instead of researching the law. This is an unconscionable inflation of tasks that unfairly benefits the burgeoning legal system and jacks up fees. It is a prime driver of out-of-control medical costs, liability insurance, and goods and services passed on to consumers in higher prices.
I am a computer systems analyst. We look for opportunities to improve processes. After we define a problem, we strive to fix the SOURCE, not the symptoms. A second major source of American decline is out-of-control courts legislating from the bench, and overturning the legislated will of the people by INTERPRETING (twisting) plain and obvious laws. Among the most important guarantees of liberty is the criminal doctrine called Void for Vagueness. People are entitled to unequivocally know what the law requires. That doctrine needs to be applied to all court decisions.
Judges also arrogated an essential power reserved to juries since the 1215 Magna Carta as a cornerstone of freedom. JURY NULLIFICATION of unjust laws (declaring the king's law void) is routinely superseded by today's judges charging (giving instructions to) the jury and demanding they follow his interpretation of the law saying "I'll tell you what the law is, and you must follow it in your decision". Nullification was designed to give the PEOPLE, not judges or the king, ultimate authority over the laws.
There are numerous examples of judicial activism that directly contravene Original Intent and written law:
Still more judicial activism and corruption create legal tyranny
Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork was the most ardent and articulate modern advocate for Original Intent. Here is a PBS interview and and an article, so you can see his inescapably sound and clear logic for yourself. Here is a debate where Original Intent vs Precedent is explored. Justice Antonin Scalia's Philosophy of an Originalist, Clarence Thomas Original Meanings. Mark Levin, author of Liberty and Tyranny speaks on Original Intent. Historian David Barton proves the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system with copious footnotes to original documents.
When advocates for an extreme position can't get elected representatives to agree with them, they shop for "A Federal Judge" (notice that names are rarely used - it avoids accountability) that will agree with their discredited position. Then they typically file suit in the 9th Circuit to overturn the legislated will of the people. Congress can no longer shirk responsibility for a court system run amok. The 9th Circuit on the left coast is so belligerent against the law, it is commonly referred to as the 9th CIRCUS. Only 20% of their decisions are affirmed. The conspirators eventually get overturned by the supreme Court, but only after millions of dollars and precious time get wasted correcting their malfeasance in pursuit of re-crafting the Constitution. Trump re-populating that court may have reduced the bias.