>>>Yeah - but it's not that simple. the courts can still decide that a law Congress makes is actually an illegal law - thus striking down the law.
>
>That's Review rather than the Activism in your example... and Review is why it's so important to appoint legalists rather than activists. Otherwise you're right- an activist SC could provoke a constitutional crisis by subverting Congress' power.
>
>>>What do you know about his writings on presidential powers? Or if a sitting president can be indited of a crime? Note that this guy was NOT on the original list of names that Trump supplied, and was only added ot the list after the Muller investigation started.
>
>I know from the public hearings that his response was 100% legalist, framed entirely per constitution and law rather than partisan opportunism. So if you don't like what he said, you're more likely to favor activists of your own color.

So you have not read his writings then? His views are expansive presidential powers are not in line with anyone else (ya know besides Trump of course).

>>> Activist judged do not concern me as much as you would expect - often when they're doing something you would consider 'activist', its in favor of something I support.
>
>And there you have it.
>
>Attributed to Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
>
>Same goes for the US Republic. The concept that an activist SC is fine as long as it agrees with you, is the sort of thinking that got Trump elected.