Thursday, August 05, 2010

Bad Judges

Jurist Nullification

When a judge/court rules that duly passed legislation is "unconstitutional,"  that judge is effectively saying:
“ The people responsible for passing this law are [choose one:] racist; bigots; narrow minded dewberries; ignorant dickweeds; domestic terrorists; uneducated curs; not as brilliant as me.   I am therefore duty-bound to save the Republic for the minority who don't like this legislation. 
You're welcome.
”
In this democratic republic of ours, it's wrong to say judges are unelected.  When someone as woeful as Elena Kagan is appointed to the highest court in the land, she's there by the grace of the people who empowered her appointer.  It follows then, that should any society find itself in thrall of a vile and malevolent majority, no judge can save it.  If that's not the case, no judge has reason to try.

8/05/2010 10:33:00 AM 6 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton


Posted by at
Labels:

This will be the comment box

6 comments:

DJMoore said...

Wait,what?

Judges have a positive duty (not exercised often enough, in my opinion) to overrule short-cycle, elected legislators by making detailed, close examinations of the law and the Constitution, to determine if the Constitution permits the passage of that law.

Ideally, it does so regardless of the feelings of the majority.

The appointed status of judges is not an unbreachable bulwark; nothing is in the face of a super-majority. Instead, it acts as a low-pass filter, smoothing out the jagged flux of popular opinion.

The Will of The People in a republic is paramount; that's the point of a republic. But there's still a useful distinction in my mind between "elected" and "appointed".

===
Verification word: "sucture". Gonna have to find a definition for that one; it sounds too good to go waste.

8/5/10, 11:35 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...

We'll disagree on that point for the reason stated. Wait ... let me take an insta-poll ...
.
.
.
.
.
I won!
..

8/5/10, 12:42 PM
Kristophr said...

Sometimes the majority IS wrong, which is why we have judges.

Sometimes judges are wrong, which is why we have impeachment.

If judges stuck to the constitution, we would not be having this conversation.

8/5/10, 1:39 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...

"Sometimes the majority IS wrong ... "

Indeed, but a government that represents a good people will be self righting. A judiciary in the habit of "stepping in," on the other hand ... .

8/5/10, 2:41 PM
Scottiebill said...

"Sometimes the majority is wrong". So true. For rock solid proof of that, look back to the presidential election of 2008.


'Nuff said.

8/5/10, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Acorn/ felon /dead people votes DOES NOT constitute a majority.
RAK

8/5/10, 11:57 PM

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)