What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.
There is a higher law than the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in 2005, emphasized and contrasted the great power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce versus much more limited federal power under the discarded Articles of Confederation.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
I think there needs to be a range of justices, of all types. You can't just pick one type.
Members of Congress must live according to the same laws as everyone else.
The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.
The Supreme Court and courts in general have been usurping the role of the legislative branch of government.
No opposing quotes found.