Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, like congress, has become fearful that President Donald Trump is on the verge of exposing the culture of corruption that pervades the judiciary and the legislature.
Breyer knows that there is absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution (Constitution) which expresses or implies that any court decision constitutes binding federal law; that precedent constitutes law; that it is a function of the court to interpret the Constitution for the country; or that the court has the authority to ban or legalize anything. The Constitution Convention considered involving the judiciary in the legislative process, but rejected the notion due to the obvious impropriety of a body adjudicating its own laws. So the concept of “judicial review” is not only without constitutional foundation; it is patently absurd.
The United States Supreme Court (scotus) is the supreme judicial authority; it is not the supreme branch of government. It has no constitutional authority to dictate, constrain or impede the operation of any other branch of government; nor is it empowered to confer powers upon anyone. For example, scotus opining that the House of Representatives has the authority to exercise judicial powers, such as subpoenas, is nothing more than an opinion. It would take a ratified constitutional amendment to confer such power; and that is not likely to happen until after the US colonizes Jupiter.
The scotus is first and foremost an appellate court; the final appeals court. The Constitution mandates that it ensure lower court decisions are correct in law and fact; not theoretic, hypothetical or philosophical scenarios, nor convoluted constitutional issues; and the decision of the court is final. Therefore it is ludicrous to imagine that a final decision could be changed (overturned) without even rehearing the case; even though there is no constitutional provision for such a hearing.
Moreover, Breyer’s alleged concern over whether the court ensures its decisions comport with prior decisions; or overturning precedent as he puts it; is absolutely disingenuous inasmuch as he had no problem with Anthony Kennedy’s so called “overturning” of Hardwick v Bowers, for example.
Breyer, in his not so subtle way, is trying to undermine President Trump’s reelection efforts by inciting fear in voters; but inasmuch as Roe v Wade, nor any other scotus decision, can ever be legally “overturned, future scotus nominees need not be a consideration when voting for the next President of the United States.