Eric Holder's resignation brought to mind the issue of curbing Constitutional powers supposedly granted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The first question which occurred to me was whether the AG has power to investigate or bring charges against SCOTUS. I'm thinking No, but perhaps a Kossak with more expertise could shed light on the issue.
If not the AG, then who can bring SCOTUS to heel when they go off the reservation as this one has done time and again, "legislating from the bench". I have read Congress has the power to impeach justices. But, the idea seems to gain no traction in this Congress, even among the minority party. Why is that? And what about bringing up a Constitutional amendment to put an additional check on SCOTUS. In short, why is an out-of-control SCOTUS not a Big Freaking Deal (BFD), even among Dems. More below the "bar".
Let us look at some of the shady things members of this SCOTUS has done.
1. Supposedly, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia attended a Koch Brothers pow-wow shortly before ruling on the Citizens' United case, and they did not recuse themselves. If true, is this not blatant corruption, and isn't it worthy of investigation and furthermore isn't it an impeachable offense.
2. Clarence Thomas' wife runs a political organization (I think it's a Super-PAC) whose main goal is to kill Obamacare. Yet, Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from the Obamacare case. I can ask the same questions here as in the case above.
3. Clarence Thomas under-reported his income by quite a bit and was given a free pass. In similar cases, judges at other levels of government could be prosecuted and even disbarred. But, there is no such oversight of Supreme Court justices.
4. And, then there are the decisions. the Citizens' United and McCutcheon decisions violate the one-person-one-vote concept developed in our Constitution--"We the People"--we are supposed to be a Representative Democracy, right? These decisions make us representative only of a very few billionaires. We have nerve to mock Russian gangsta-rule, when the Koch brothers are about to own our government.
Over-ruling Section V of the Civil Rights Act brings the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote into jeopardy. Yes, they have the right to vote on paper, but what's to stop the re-institution of Jim Crow laws to stop their voting in practice. It seems this SCOTUS won't stop that process.
Hobby Lobby brings the separation of church and state, so cherished by, of all people, Thomas Jefferson, the oft-quoted darling of the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, into question. And no, Jefferson was not a Christian just because Michelle Bachman mistakenly thinks he was. Remember, she also mistook serial killer John Wayne Gacy to be the actor John Wayne.
These are the most damaging cases, but the SCOTUS has also done much to damage laws which protect labor.
I've read that some Constitutional scholars question whether SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution, but I think the horse is already out of the barn on that one. Accepted legal practice has made that a Constitutional power.
My point: is it not a Constitutional crisis when one branch of government gives itself extraordinary powers. Hasn't the SCOTUS done that by assuming they are above the law governing other judges (not recusing themselves) and by changing the law through their outlandish interpretations? Shouldn't Dems, even when they are in the minority, bring up the possibility of curbing SCOTUS power either through impeachment proceedings or through Constitutional amendment?