I believe I quoted FDR earlier in this thread, so it's been self evident for nearly a century at the very least. And the fact the court folded when pressed is telling.

I'll need specifics on those two, please.

Yes, changing people's minds is important. What work am I skipping over, exactly? Can you describe the work?

Of course they flip flop, every reasonable person forms an opinion based on the information available at the time, and that can change.

The constitution isn't interpreted based on new information, it's interpreted based on ideology. "Constitutional review" is an empty vessel that can be used to allow or disallow any law imaginable.

Legislators should run the legislature, and judges should run the judiciary. There's no need to mix branches.

The court could exist for 1,000 years and you can scream "fantasy" at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't change the fact it can be undone in a single day, unilaterally by a single president.

Congress writes laws, the president signs them. What's confusing about that?

Constitutional review is a farce. Look how often they flip flop,

school segregation laws are disallowed (Brown (1954)) or to say that school desegregation laws are disallowed (Parents Involved (2007)). You can use it to say laws restricting voting rights are disallowed (Harper (1966)) or to say that the Voting Rights Act is disallowed (Shelby County (2013)). You can use it to say laws restricting contraception are disallowed (Griswold (1965)) or to say that laws requiring insurance to cover contraception are disallowed (Burwell (2014)).

Things that were once allowed by the Supreme Court can later be disallowed. So at one point, you can say that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell (2003)) and then say they are disallowed (Citizens United (2010)). You can say that fair share fees for public sector unions are allowed (Abood (1977)) and then say they are disallowed (Janus (2018)).

The supreme court is an ideological institution, and a regressive one at that. Constitutional review can end tomorrow with a simple declaration by the president.

If we had a young, healthy, 8-1 liberal supreme court, marbury would be overturned by the first republican president.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/20/what-exactly-is-the-liberal-position-on-the-supreme-court/

This old "fantasy land" critique of left-wing policy is so boring and limiting.

Fighting for better healthcare or working toward poverty reduction is no more or less "fantasy" than plugging away at a spreadsheet for a weapons manufacturer or venture capital firm.

Citations Needed has a good episode on this right-wing trope, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-168-how-faux-folksy-real-world-advice-is-employed-to-limit-political-possibility-and-b536b9248d65

There has to be a branch of government separate from the authors and the enforcers of the laws that can, with authority, strike down unconstitutional laws.

No there doesn't. Many country's top courts are advisory, the power of America's supreme court is comparably regressive and undemocratic. Not to mention unconstitutional.

Overruling Marbury (1803) would fix the issue.

It's definitely within the president's unilateral power to end the court on day 1. Here's how,

All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/20/what-exactly-is-the-liberal-position-on-the-supreme-court/

🤓

Your comment was pretty clearly about the supreme court

Nationalization has many degrees in practice, but as a leftist I assume the author is envisioning full public ownership and management.

It's a maneuver that only needs to be done once :)

As far as the senate goes, you're probably right there's no quick way to abolition, but as Trump threatened, a president could repeatedly prorogue the institution to kneecap some of its power.

False. Roosevelt nearly did it himself until the court bent to his will, simply to preserve itself.

FDR was pretty clear that MvM is being abused by the court to the point that it's no longer a judicial body,

But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: “It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”[4]

But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/fireside-chat-on-the-plan-for-reorganization-of-the-judiciary/#footnote4

False.

It's a demonstration of how far Democrats are from being a left-wing party.

If left-wing policies are not seriously considered, then liberals cannot complain when the left doesn't vote for their candidate.

Nationalizing the fortune 100 would socialize 2/3 of the GDP, seems a good start.

That's not abolishing private funding.

Yeah, candidates win votes by appealing to people. Democracy is pretty cringe.

Both are anti-democratic institutions, so neither are left wing.

A left-leaning president can unilaterally end constitutional review by declaring that Marbury v Madison is non-binding, and the court's rulings are only advisory.