Posted on 07/15/2003 2:56:08 PM PDT by Sachem
Interesting. Do you react this way to everyone who brings you news you'd rather not hear? When your doctor tells you that you are sick, do you castigate him for "advocating" illness? When the weatherman warns you of the potential for tornadoes, do you call the station to complain that he is "advocating" bad weather? If the dentist tells you that your child needs a filling, do you start looking for a dentist who isn't "advocating" tooth decay?
"The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs."
Isn't that special? Here's the problem - by and large, as I'm pointing out to you, the electorate doesn't object to what the courts are doing, because the courts are essentially only responding to what they think the people want. And mostly, they do a pretty good job of staying within the bounds of what the political will of the day is. How then do you intend to solve this little dilemma, when the people simply don't object to the courts giving them the things they want?
LOL, you can do better than this crap General, much better.
Isn't that special?
Nah, it's simply the definition of judicial activism as written in a reference manual. That you don't like it is neither here nor there.
Here's the problem - by and large, as I'm pointing out to you, the electorate doesn't object to what the courts are doing, because the courts are essentially only responding to what they think the people want.
I know what you're pointing out. You're advocating Gallup replace SCOTUS and plebicsites replace our Constitutional Republic. That you don't realise it suprises me because you're a sharp tack.
And mostly, they do a pretty good job of staying within the bounds of what the political will of the day is. How then do you intend to solve this little dilemma, when the people simply don't object to the courts giving them the things they want?
Can we give the majority more of your money when they want it? Can we have a weapon free country because the majority wants it? Partial Birth Abortion is not the killing of a human being in 1973 but it is in 2003?
I mean the possibilities are endless.
But in the end, the form of government we prefer is a personal matter. I happen to think that a Constitutional Republic with the federal government guaranteeing those inalienable rights granted by the Creator is a good thing.
I also think that judicial oligarchies making laws and interpreting the Constitution based on theirs and Europes mores is bad business.
This country is big enough for both of us in a federalist nation but not big enough when 9 guys and gals dictate community standards for all of us. The Constitution doesn't grant them that power and the fact that both Congress and the States don't have the wherewithal to tell them where to shove it doesn't change that one iota.
One other thing for the record. SCOTUS ordered 48 states in 1973 to strike their laws regarding abortion from the books. They didn't rule that Texas' law prohibiting abortion for women who had been raped unconstituional, they made new law and ignored the narrow issue before them for an expansive view of the penumbra when nobody asked.
That's judicial activism General.
You may be a proponent of same but to deny that is not an activist Supreme Court is, well, kind of whacky given the facts of the case.
You may be a proponent of same but to deny that is an activist Supreme Court is, well, kind of whacky given the facts of the case.
I'm simply reporting to you how things are. Don't shoot the messenger - he's here to help you. Really.
And that's how things are. The Supreme Court basically runs around giving people the things they want. Whether or not they should do so is a whole other question, but that's what they are doing.
Can we give the majority more of your money when they want it? Can we have a weapon free country because the majority wants it? Partial Birth Abortion is not the killing of a human being in 1973 but it is in 2003?
Should we? No. But I assure you, if those beliefs become entrenched within society at large, the Supreme Court will find a way to give it to them, if the legislatures do not. They are simply not the guardians of the Constitution that people wish them to be - mostly, they aren't capable of defying the will of the people, whether for good or for bad.
One other thing for the record. SCOTUS ordered 48 states in 1973 to strike their laws regarding abortion from the books. They didn't rule that Texas' law prohibiting abortion for women who had been raped unconstituional, they made new law and ignored the narrow issue before them for an expansive view of the penumbra when nobody asked.
And yet you notice that, thirty years later, nobody has stormed the court building and hung them from a tree. Nobody has managed to create a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe. People objected to some fringe aspects of abortion - parental notification, et cetera - and so you got a series of rulings dealing with those fringe aspects in the 1980's - Casey, et. al. And most people in this country are just fine about that. The majority of people do not object to legal abortion, and the courts recognize that fact.
I am sorry if it sounds like more work, but you cannot change the people by changing the courts - you must first win the hearts and minds of society to change the courts. Change the people around you, and the courts will follow - they always have, and they always will. I am not telling you that this is the way the courts should be - I am telling you that this is the way they are. Win the public debate, and you win everything. Period.
:=} Here's a newsflash for you, I don't need a message or help to understand the courts have gone from interpreting the law to making it.
I'll remind you that you took the view that judicial activism is a myth. I see it clearly and evidently you do as well. The only difference appears to be that you are embracing it and I am opposing it.
No.
Good!
But I assure you, if those beliefs become entrenched within society at large, the Supreme Court will find a way to give it to them, if the legislatures do not. They are simply not the guardians of the Constitution that people wish them to be - mostly, they aren't capable of defying the will of the people, whether for good or for bad.
Right, unless they are reined in they will continue along the activist path.
And yet you notice that, thirty years later, nobody has stormed the court building and hung them from a tree. Nobody has managed to create a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe.
Yet you fail to notice that the body politic has become so polarized that it will be damn near impossible to appoint federal judges in the near future. You also fail to notice that there are millions upon millions of people who are simmering as we speak because they were left out of the debate on abortion. 9 justices poisoned the waters and radicalised many on both fringes of the issue to do stupid and evil things because their views were not aired. The same thing is about to happen again.
People objected to some fringe aspects of abortion - parental notification, et cetera - and so you got a series of rulings dealing with those fringe aspects in the 1980's - Casey, et. al. And most people in this country are just fine about that. The majority of people do not object to legal abortion, and the courts recognize that fact.
Actually there are 40 million dead human beings who are not too fine about it but that's for another thread. Most people were fine about slavery until a minority view held that it was incompatible with a nation that believed in the rights of man. That little disagreement led to the deaths of half a million Americans.
"Most people are fine with it" is OK with topless bars, prostitution and pot laws, pro or con. Life and death doesn't fit into that category.
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.