Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Let's see, a judge says abortion is wrong, the right will love him and claim how he is a great judge...... the left condemns him
A judge approves abortion he is a leftist and needs to be taken off the bench..... the left loves him
A judge makes a ruling saying concealed weapons are ok.... the left hates him the right again loves the man
A judge decrees concealed weapons as illegal ...... the right wants him disbenched and the left love him....
Seems to me that whenever a ruling doesn't go one side's way they cry foul and claim the courts have overstepped boundaries.
Personally, these judges are human and they have the job to interpret the laws as they see fit. I do not honestly believe that judges are perfect but I do believe that they do the best job possible, in most cases.
To condemn these people who have made lifetimes of studying laws and learning to interpret them to the best of their ability is wrong.
It's one of the problems though that exists in our system. The party in chrage wants all the judges to be on their page. When this is not possible they will do all they can to discredit said judge and claim he is a problem to society because he does not interpret the laws the way the party in control so desires.
My opinion this is a very slippery slope we enter if we allow the controlling party to be able to hurt the judges abilities to rule on cases. Sure, the GOP will run roughshod now, but when the Dems return to power, the Dems then will be able to do so.
It is vital to our country and part of what has made this country great, that the minority and the dissenters have a voice and power in some way. To weaken the courts at this time would be a huge mistake and would give credence to leftists that believe the right is out for total control and will squash anyone that stands in their way.
|
This comes close to the heart of the matter. Good judges, and good justices, interpret the law. This ought to be given. People often get confused when it comes to the labels of conservative anf liberal judges. Remember it was this conservative Supreme Court that in
Lopez said for the first time in decades that Congress had overstepped it's bounds in making a law against guns near schools, and that that law didn't really have anything to do with the interstate commerce clause, upon which Congress based it's authority to make such laws.
What?! a conservative Supreme Court overturning a law against guns near schools?!! What terrible activist judges!
That having been said, the 9th Circuit argument needs to be addressed.
Whether the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegience is a violation of the establishment clause should be an interpretation of the law, and not a political statement. However, most courts try not to get involved in potentially egregious political squabbles if it can be avoided. That case, at least, clearly could have been avoided on a very legitimate legal ground - standing, yet the 9th circuit chose to make a political statement with it. Thus, one more reason for that circuit's reputation for being "activist judges."
I'd have made the same call that the 9th Cir. did on the issue, but a good justice whio was following the law and not trying to make a polical point would have thrown the appeal out because the step-dad without custody did not have standing to bring the appeal. By not doing so, they were in fact, attempting to become activist judges. Thus their reputation is well-deserved.
Apart from that issue, John Cornyn really disappoints me. I am reminded of the chapter in Malcom Gladwell's bestseller
Blink that discussed how people across America voted for Warren Harding because he looked "presidential" and my observation of how everyone in Texas talked about how John Cornyn looked Senatorial. In my opinion, this statement of his really makes him look ill-informed, if not stupid or intentionally deceptive. My guess is the latter, because he knows better.