[zekevermillion]

They never do. I think the attitude of a lot of pols is "we can pass the laws, let the courts decide if they are constitutional". But if you know for a fact that a law is not constitutional, I don't see how you square that with the oath of office.

[java-man]

There is no feedback mechanism for correcting a rogue agent at this particular powerful position. One more SCOTUS justice retires and we have a rubberstamp entity.

Add to the mix a giant military industrial complex and we are all set for the next 1933.

[zekevermillion]

I think you'll be surprised at how independent the SCOTUS is. Life appointment. It is always surprising that despite politics and personal flair (thinking Scalia here) the top judges agree on 99.9% of the law. It is only the hard cases that they take, and there is disagreement there. But removing a right that is verbatim protected in the US Constitution is not a hard case at all. You might be worried about the recent Republican appointees who are originalists. But if you're an originalist, or a textualist, I mean there is no ambiguity in the text of the 14th amendment when it comes to citizenship for those "born in" the US.

[java-man]

I really hope so.

Surprisingly, the Republic nearly withstood a certain event seventeen years ago. It is hard to make predictions (especially about the future), and engineers ought to be naturally pessimistic, but amazingly a lot of what makes this country great is still there. I see a lot of down trends and it's not fun.