Posted on 05/12/2005 1:32:13 PM PDT by jebanks
Smart move to declare a mistrial right away and pick a new jury. No matter what the results of the trial were, it would likely be appealed and have to be retried. Don't waste the time and money of the current trial and appeal.
I agree that the Constitution should be above popular whim. Getting a super majority in both houses plus the president's signature (which is not even required for a Constitutional amendment) is no political cake-walk and a far cry from subjecting our laws to popular whim.
It certainly beats a situation we have now, which is that a de facto amendment can be shoved down our throats with the stroke of a pen wielded by 5 people who never have to answer to anybody.
State of Nebraska - "This is our state. We do things our way here, and we are not going to let some unelected judge tell us how to run things. Our response to this ruling is 'Negative'. This judge can now sit down and shut the hell up."
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
This is the PERFECT ILLUSTRATION as to why a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.
We need a Right-to-Life amendment worse. If we can get this one too, or make it a rider, great. If we can get one to reform the federal courts, even better. I fear this has gone further than changing personalities will cure.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Which is why we need to do two things:
1. Repeal lifetime tenure for _all_ federal judges
2. Establish term limits for _all_ federal judges (the "term" would be somewhat longer than for elected positions, say, perhaps, 10 years for the first term, after which they could be re-nominated and re-confirmed for 10 more).
Of course, both changes could only be achieved through a Constitutional amendment.
As you stated, impeachment isn't a "real solution". Term limits for judges _is_ such a solution.
I, too, think it's time for a Constitutional amendment that limits the power of judicial review - if not totally, then to give the Congress the power to invalidate decisions of the Supreme Court via supermajority votes.
Neither of these amendments is going to pass anytime soon (sigh).
Cheers!
- John
No. Take a step back and think about the finite legal issues in each case. I've been blessed to make a living on this stuff, and I don't care how Lawrence is distorted, one man one woman marriage doesn't "constrain" homosexual conduct. Criminalizing sodomy constrains sodomy, but one man one woman marriage does not prohibit or otherwise constrain sex of any stripe. The government's out of the bedroom, but it's still on that marriage license. That's where the logical hole is and that's exactly where the SCOTUS will finally put an end to all this nonsense if they ever decide to accept a case. While it is frustrating to me that many very bright people are being misled, I am very confident that the legality of this legislation will be confirmed, eventually, by the Supreme Court.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Are we describing a concept of states' right being inviolate and a viable doctrine only when its application coincides with one's own ideological perspective of a situation or in an outcome with which that person (or identifiable group) finds contrary to what they want the outcome to be?
Either constitutional law is a continum and has a high degree of predicability, or it is merely a bundle of suggestions. Most of the time the law is consistent with justice, that is a happy circumstance. But when justice and the law are not congruent, and it's a case in which equity cannot be a remedy, the law's consistency, predictability, stability and precedent are superior to the anecdotal case before a court.
We select trial and appellate judges to--as is the phrase so popular among talk-show folks and those who either don't understand the role of the judiciary or want the court to decide only the way they favor - - decide cases based on the plain language. Yet, when courts exercise their role in interpreting ambiguous and vague constitutional commands (like due process, equal protection, etc.), there is always the same discrete group that screams for judges' scalps. Courts are "out of control" when they apply long standing constitutional principles to evolving real-life circumstances and when they protect minorities from the tyranny of a transient majority. It's a political reality as old as the Constitution itself and neither the screams of today's right fringe nor the future discontent of tomorrow's agitated interest group will change the sanctity of the judicial process and the role of judges.
Yep. Nice concise way of putting it. The Constitutional Amendment to Abolish Judicial Review.
It will never fly. We need a nice soft euphemism. But we have to defang the courts. I guess we are lucky that they are overreaching to the point where we are going to be able to get the country behind us now.
And of course we need to restore the separation of powers by ending the ability of judges to act as Super Legislators through abolishing judicial review. As you mentioned, neither event is going to happen in the near future. But if we want to save our country, make no mistake about it, the judiciary will have to be firmly curbed.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Yer dern tootin... it's impossible to predict what an individual will do once they are on the bench, as we've learned to our chagrin over and over and over again.
Thought you'd want to see this. Another candidate for early retirement.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Because there is no such thing as a "gay marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that the "civil union" thing is probably roughly ok, but take all the special talk out of it. Anybody can enter into a limited partnership or a general partnership with anyone else. Use this as the framework if they want to assign rights to each other. Do not let these a-holes destroy the concept of marriage. For if the states are forced to allow these so-called marriages, then marriage has no meaning and needs to be obliterated from society. Then the faggots have acheived their true objective.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Constitutional law is ONLY possible with judicial review.
You apparently confuse Democracy with a Republic.
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.