I'm just not pissed about something today. Well, that's not completely true, but the unsettling news has just blended together in a black noise. It's much more comfortable sitting here now than it was in 2000 when the bad things were a shock to the system. It's like I just got the ol' electric chair padded so my back won't hurt.
Anyway, I found this letter in Slate's Fray called "Kill a Judge!". It has a very well-stated rant about the current anti-judicial jihad. (I stole that term from Fat In Spanish)
8 comments:
It's pretty incredible that you would say, "That should tell you who is in charge of the judicial branch. Obviously it isn't the Republicans." 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. The President appoints Federal judges - Republicans have been the President 16 of the last 24 years; 24 of the last 36 years. Was it some nefarious liberal plot to trick the Republican presidents into appointing closet Democrats to the bench?
With regard to the ability of the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, the courts may or may not have originally been intended to be able to strike down laws. But Congess certainly was never meant to be able to pass laws that contradict the Constitution. And since the courts were intended to interpret the law, if they interpret that the law was unconstitutional, it obviously was illegally passed and is therefore invalid. Are you saying it should be OK for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws? What if a Democratic majority had passed a law saying nobody was allowed to criticize Bill Clinton back in 1992?
mike hubbell, I salute your willingness to break from the republican party line, because you are so obviously high. I believe courts do have the right to "strike down a law", if it is determined to be unconstitutional. Funny how conservatives cry for "judicial restraint" until a brain dead woman who hasn't really had a life for 15 years becomes the political cause du jour.
"I don't give a crap about gay rights"...very compassionate...Jesus would be proud. It's ok to be a republican mike; as Ralph Nader said, "Republicans are people too." Just lighten up a little. Use a little humor. It takes the edge off and makes others more receptive to your points.
p.s. puff, puff, pass!
Wasn't it the Republicans in the 2000 election that dragged in the high courts to try and get the recount struck down even though there were laws put in place that favored a recount in situations such as that to protect the legitimacy of our elections?
Hey, don't bogart the bud, Hubbell!
Call me crazy, but if "the majority" is complaining about having their power curtailed by the judiciary isn't that a sign that the structure of our government is functioning as intended, no?
The elective aspect of our government protects against the tyranny of the minority, whereas the judiciary protects against the tyranny of the majority...something our founding fathers expressly worried about and protected against.
Looking to knee-cap the judiciary is about as short-sighted a strategy as one could devise. Whose to say where the majority will lie in 10-20 years? Whose to say who'll be in it?
Page and Shaprio great book, "The Rationale Public" show how quickly racial attitiudes in america have changed over the last 30 years. A minority view became the supra-majority view in no time. Who'd have known?
Protecting the independence of the judiciary is not-so disguised self-interest....so, that tells you where the thinkers come down on this issue. Paging Darwin!
When Republicans nominated Justices, they nominated people who would do their jobs as they are supposed to be, whereas the Dems nominated people who would toe the party line. That's the difference, and now the Dems can't stand that Bush gets to appoint even more people who will follow the law instead of voting in favor of every liberal issue under the sun.
And yes, the SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The problem is that several, with the left-leaning justices leading the way, are taking this to mean that they can "reinterpret" the clauses of the Constitution however they want to make their case. Twisting the words around to strike down whatever laws you feel aren't right, and ignoring 200 years of what people previously thought the Constitution said, is judicial tyranny. Reading the Federalist papers and interpreting the Constitution the way it was meant to be read by the people who wrote it, that's what they should be doing, and what Clarence Thomas and Scalia typically do.
I gotta disagree with Mike here. Greer did not kill Schiavo. She was basically already dead, all he did was uphold the already standing law that the husband is the legal guardian in such a case as this. Where exactly did he do anything that in any way relates to changing a law?
They did a CAT scan, didn't they? How much more evidence is needed to prove the lady had no higher brain functions? They've been running tests for 15 years, the husband was sick of it, and wanted his wife's wishes to be fulfilled.
The courts are allowed to make decisions as to the constitutionality of laws that are made. The constitution is the ultimate law. If laws that are passed are decided to be contrary to the constitution, then they can be said to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
As for going by the past to see what is right and wrong- we used to have laws saying that slavery is OK and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, among other things. Should we just go back to that because there is a presidence? In part due to the new interpretations of the constitution to interpret "man" as meaning "human" these things were decided to be unconstitutional.
Post a Comment