The controversial decision, the first of its kind in the 210-year history of U.S. representative government, was, according to Justice David Souter, "a response to the clear, demonstrable incompetence and indifference of the current U.S. citizenry in matters concerning the operation of this nation's government."
As a result of the ruling, the American people will no longer retain the power to choose their own federal, state and local officials or vote on matters of concern to the public.
The lone dissenting vote came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, in his minority opinion wrote, "Although the American people are clearly unable to make responsible decisions at this time, it is not their fault that they are so uninformed. Rather, the blame lies with the media interests and corporate powers that intentionally keep them in the dark on crucial issues."
Although this is humor... it's not too far off the mark. While the establishment of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison did not specifically deal with the ramifications of the Courts authority to contradict the will of the People, later cases most certainly have. When the people demand that their elected officials pass laws that are repugnant of the Constitution, it is up to the Courts to nullify those laws and, in a sense, tell the People they screwed up.
Unfortunately the Court has gone much further than this in the past. It's one thing to be told you screwed up once, it's another to be told you can't figure out how to govern yourselves so we, the unelected Court, are going to tell you how to legislate on certain matters. Or there's the fun technique of "interpreting" words to mean something completely different than what they actually say so that it can fit with Court's political agenda better and strike down laws they don't like... essentially telling the People that the Constitution is wrong, the framers of it were wrong, your views are wrong, your represenatives are wrong, and we know better than all of the above.
Then of course you have the "vast right wing conspirator" like William Rehnquist making "tyrannical" statements like this: "If the Supreme Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is constitutional, it has made a mistake, but the result of its mistake is only to leave the nation with a law duly enacted by the popularly [elected branches of government]. But if the Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is not constitutional, it has made a mistake of considerably greater consequence; it has struck down a law duly enacted by the popularly elected branches of government, not because of any principle in the Constitution but because of the individual views of desirable policy held by a majority of the nine justices at that time."
How "democratic" of him. Oh the irony.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I have read that Rehnquist quote before. Furthermore, I wouldn't label him a "vast right wing conspirator." Supreme Court justices, like any other humans, have good and bad days. This quote obviously emanated from the Chief Justice on a particularly enlightened day. He illuminates an important and profound distinction.
If you ever get a chance to read his book on the history of the Supreme Court, I'd highly recommend it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed