Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
correction. delay apologized for how he said it, not for what he said.
Delay is no different than any other politician out there. Politicians on both sides of the isle do the exact same thing delay has done. Where's the outrage? Libs aren't angry because he had things paid for him and his family, they're angry because he's a republican. If he was a democrat you wouldn't hear a peep.
|
Well I for one,
stevo, am simply pissed that he would even suggest impeachment for any of the judiciary branch for their role in the Schavio case. The judiciary is not to be tampered with when a ruling is not liked, or even majority supported. Lest you forget, the judiciary is not there to allign with majority will. They are there to interprete the law. That role is reserved for them, and is not the domain of congress. Congress makes the rules, but judges decide what they mean.
To give an example that any conservative would appreciate (Conservative I said, not Republican, there is a difference).
Copyright law in the 18th and 19th century in this country protected only Cititizens copyrights, not foreign ones (foreign national citizens). Many liberals of the time where disturbed by this, and voiced loudly that copyright as directed by the founding fathers covered both groups. The court intervened, and judged that the law as written was only applicable to US citizens.
Now many liberals of the time, with economic interests in Europe, did not like this, and attempted to impeach the judiciary that acted the clarify. The discovered they had no ability to do so.
Nearly every legal scholar agrea's that without this lopsided law, the american copyright would never have developed into the economy it is today. Congress did eventually re-write the laws to cover foreign copyright holders, but the laws as they stood in the 19th century did not give that protection.
Now why is that applicable?
Because congress may not interprete that law. As above, judges are responsible for that, and may find the law to have meaning other than what lawmakers beleive was it's "intention". Therefor, they must be carefull in how they phrase any law.
Mr. Delay may not assume that what he belives is the will of the people or congress has any right to overrule a judge. That's not how the rules where written. Least of all, popular opinion of the moment has no say in the judiciary branch. It was designed not to. The interpretation of law happens in a time frame that most cannot understand, as it does not allign with any administration or popular period. A law may not be presented to the courts for interpretation for years, or it may happen in a day.
If this a problem, by all means, go argue it with Jefferson.
Delay shot his mouth off. Many politicians have come to regret doing that.
He needs a lesson in civics to remind him that he has no power in this situation, and needs to get over it, to borrow a qoute from Host.
Now is all this fair? That's your opinion
Any politician that attempts to assert control over the judiciary branch is breaching the seperation of power, and could be impeached for their action.
Im not interested in changing the rules, regardless of what either party wants at a given time. After all, the judiciary is not there to answer to public opinion on an issue. If either party wants that, they fail to live up to the value of being patriotic.