The only good thing about removing judicial review would be that I would no longer need endure Scalias tortured arguments the Constitution means exactly the opposite of what it actually DOES mean, because he would have no authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. His argument is moot because incorrect, but would equally moot ITSELF if it were correct; it merits no further discussion.


Judges exist to interpret the law; it is the whole of their job. Words always require interpretation and context even when they are explicit, and vague broad phrases like "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" would establish the Constitution grants implied (if unspecified) powers even if that were not already established.
What does strict constructionism make of the Ninth Amendment (other than Scalias assertion the Bill of Rights should not be; he is a very impressive constitutional authority, but the impression is far from positive)? Does the Ninth Amendment mean the Constitution established anarchy, or is it completely worthless since it explicitly states no rights, and both its letter and spirit are diametrically opposed to the principles of strict constructionism?

Where was Scalias strict constructionism when he voted to overrule the FL Supreme Courts order of a statewide recount in 2000 (even though the Constitution gives each state sole authority to conduct and regulate its own elections)? Where does the Constitution mention health insurance, giving the SCOTUS the power to rule on it? In fact, where does it mention the SCOTUS' ability to rule ANYTHING unconstitutional or not? Again, if Scalia is right, judicial review is itself unconstitutional, so his opinions on it, on Bush v. Gore, on Robamacare, his opinion of any laws VALIDITY, is nil. If he dislikes a law he can do what any of the rest of us can: Try to change it, because no court can DISALLOW it.