Posted on 09/09/2010 2:24:38 PM PDT by topher
It’s still not legal. Judges can’t make laws. Judges can’t write constitutions. Judges can’t amend constitutions.
The problem with the headline is not merely semantic. It goes to whether or not we are still a republic, or whether we are now some sort of judicial oligarchy.
Words mean things, and by using that language, we’re actually playing directly into the hands of those who think judges really do make law.
This is not some minor little beef.
This kind of thing needs to take root and grow, nationwide.
Judges need to have some consequences for ruling from the bench, especially against the expressed will of the people.
This could bring back the actual threat of impeachment for not being a fair referee that defers to the law as written.
Impeachment was for attempts to “subvert the Constitution.” George Mason.
Impeachment was to be used for “the abuse of the public trust.” Alexander Hamilton.
Impeachments were imposed for “unconstitutional opinions, attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.” Justice Joseph Story.
Very simply, impeachment was the recourse when judges intruded on the domain of the other two branches, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of the legislature.
Brilliant and worthy post.
No, that was Justice Kennedy. O'Connor's claim to liberal fame was her deciding vote in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" (1992), one of the most viable challenges to abortion yet mounted, in which she said that abortion is now "settled law" around which women plan their lives, so it should not be abolished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.