koop - 6/26/2005 2:37 PM
Botnst - 6/26/2005 2:18 PM
1. How many amendments to the constitution do you want? ...
2. The whole attack on the judiciary is a smoke screen and a straw man....
3. If you really want to be concerned about unelected officials making up rules look to the thousands and thousands of rules made by administrative agencies...
4. The unelected officials making up rules in the middle of the game aren't judges it's bureocrats.
1. As many as necessary and no more.
2. Not to me.
3. I am concerned about it and want less, not more government in response to that BS. I also want laws to be interpreted as they apply to the Constitution as it is written. Where conflicts arise between amendments, which they often do, I would prefer that Jusitice err on the side of individual liberty, not on the side of government, at whatever level.
4. It is both. Judges are easier to deal with than the entire freaking federal bureaucracy. I think both need to be reigned in. If I must fight a battle, I take out the easier adversary first. That's the Judiciary.
1. That's not an answer, we freed the slaves with a const amendment, should we also have had a const amendment that said poll taxes are illegal and literacy test to vote are illegal? What you are advocating is no judicial oversight.
2. Because once again you bought the party line.
3. So who gets to decide what is a valid exercise of congresses police powers? Congress? It's nice to say "I want decisions made to adhere to the constitution" but the const isn't a very detailed doc. That statement doesn't mean much. Who gets to decide what it means.
4. Again, judges don't make rules.
As with all "reformers" I'd really like to hear some concrete examples the reforms you are looking for. How bout some cases in which the SC made up rules out of whole cloth?[/QUOTE]
1. The question, "How many amendments should we have" is a useless question to which I responded with a frivolous answer. Perhaps you could phrase it so that we could address it reasonably?
2. Yours is just a different party line. Doesn't make it any more or less the correct one than my own, it is just a different view of the role of the judiciary. It is to be expected, not trivialized.
3. That is the very reason we have a divided government, so that nobody gets the final answer on anything. It is alsways subject to enactment, enfocrement, interpretation and amendment. I would prefer less interpretation and more enactment as I believe that the legislature responds to the people while the Judiciary follows its own lights. But it is a tension.
Sometimes in history I would go the other way, like in the United States vs the Cherokee nation, in which the Supremes ruled in favor of the Cherokee and jackson said, "John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it." The result of which was that Jackson forced the Cherokee out of their ancestral land, basicly because somebody found gold in their mountains. Jackson demonstrated that the Supremes have no power to act, whatever their ruling. Not a highpoint in our history, but some people still insist that jackson was a great guy. Probably not a Cherokee opinion.
4. Judges are not supposed to make rules. But sometimes they discover things that nobody had seen before.
Like transferring property by immenent domain from a private individual to a corporation, for example. I would say they erred against personal liberty, which violates my assumption that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of a corporation, since I see no rights given to corporations in the constitution. Somehow they found one.
I'm agin it.