The Supreme Court's power of judicial review should be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment and except as authorized by Congress, no court of the United States or of any individual state shall have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes enacted by Congress or by state legislatures,(Tushnet, 2005).
An example is Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, were each defined their personal philosophy to how they decide to hear cases. Justice Breyer believes the Constitution is a "living document" which adheres to the Founders' "values" but changes to society and technology must be considered. In contrast, Justice Scalia said he is not fit to judge the values of the current American public.
By not limiting the authority of the Supreme Court Justices, we are in essence granting absolute authority over to a few group of men, isn’t this the opposite of what the framer supported, of allowing one part of the government to become too powerful as to have absolute authority?
In contrast, those who support the current Judicial system make aim that in a Democratic process the people would in essence govern themselves and allow the formality of self-government to prevail, but are such practices really any better than a Judicial process? If, we adopted this system some may argue that a corruption in political reform and the distrust in political leader are not really any better than the system we currently hold in place.
As mentioned by legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron, he asked why, in cases of reasonable disagreement over interpretation, the votes of a majority on a Court of nine justices should prevail over the votes of a majority of one hundred senators and over four hundred representatives? Contemporary liberals give answers centered on distrust of politics and of the people. These should not be attractive to democrats.