The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[Pah]

Given that officials are elected via popular vote...
Given that voters attempt to elect officials that advocate similar views...
Any descision made by such elected officials is a direct result of the will of the majority...

There's a great deal that shows this is an false idea.

It is hardly true when a politician is swayed by special interests. Following "party lines" also erases the influence of the people. There is no guarentee that a politician will follow the majority of the constituency.

For example, in Virginia's "marriage" admendment, politicians voted for the removal of all civil unions and other civil rights in spite of the will of the people as shown by polls.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Its a good thing too, Pah. The "popular majority" is a very fickle animal that has no business passing legislation, which is why we have separate politicians--to protect the minority.

It's interesting though...I would not agree that the Pro-Life stance makes up the majority in this issue.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Its a good thing too, Pah. The "popular majority" is a very fickle animal that has no business passing legislation, which is why we have separate politicians--to protect the minority.

It's interesting though...I would not agree that the Pro-Life stance makes up the majority in this issue.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:f4i8_8LAUoQJ:www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm+abortion+polls&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Poll results have been mixed. I agree, ceridwen, the popular majority has no business passing legistlation, but the SC has no right to act like legislators either.

 

[Sunstone]

Just about any freedom can be abused. The freedom to consume alcohol is a case in point. Most people don't abuse it, but some do. The freedom to have an abortion can also be abused. But without knowing the exact circumstances of the person who decides to have an abortion, it is difficult to make a sound judgement about whether that person has abused their freedom to abort. For this reason, I am leery of arguments against abortion that rest on the grounds many or most abortions are performed for economic reasons. Economic reasons is a broad generalization. Too broad to be genuinely meaningful in determining whether a decision to abort was justified or not.

The simple fact is, however, that any freedom comes with the price that some people will abuse that freedom. It is not a strong argument against freedom, therefore, that it sometimes results in abuses.

 

[Ceridwen018]

the SC has no right to act like legislators either.

I don't understand, kevmicsmi--that's that Supreme Court's job. Whenever they overturn legislation, it means that new legislation must take its place, and its the Supreme Court's job to pass that. If they were only allowed to overturn legislation, without filling the gap with the alternate legislation that was determined appropriate in court, the whole system would be incredibly unstable and nothing would ever get done.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I don't understand, kevmicsmi--that's that Supreme Court's job. Whenever they overturn legislation, it means that new legislation must take its place, and its the Supreme Court's job to pass that. If they were only allowed to overturn legislation, without filling the gap with the alternate legislation that was determined appropriate in court, the whole system would be incredibly unstable and nothing would ever get done.

They act like legislators in so much as they feel the end justifies the means. Look at Roe v Wade, whether you are pro choice, pro life, I think its obvious a "right" was found in the constitution that is in reality not there. Some justices took the affirming side because they thought it was a good idea, and SHOULD BE A RIGHT, not because the constitution deemed it a right. Its time for the SC to get back to strictly interpreting the constitution, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sunstone]

Have you studied law, Kevmicsmi? From what little I've studied of it, it seems to me that it is impossible for judges to do their job of interpreting the laws without also, in practice, creating law. The two go hand in hand, whether we want that or not. The only way you'd get rid of judges who created law would be to get rid of all judges.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Have you studied law, Kevmicsmi? From what little I've studied of it, it seems to me that it is impossible for judges to do their job of interpreting the laws without also, in practice, creating law. The two go hand in hand, whether we want that or not. The only way you'd get rid of judges who created law would be to get rid of all judges.

Did you read my previous post? If you did, and actually believe SC justices are around to create law instead of interpret the Constitution, I can only thank God you are not on the court.....Unless your first name is Ruth?

 

[Sunstone]

Did you read my previous post? If you did, and actually believe SC justices are around to create law instead of interpret the Constitution, I can only thank God you are not on the court.....Unless your first name is Ruth?

Your response fails to address the point I made.

It's interesting to note that most of the Founders who wrote our Constitution were lawyers and thus intimately familiar with how a legal system works in practice. It would have come as no shock to them that courts naturally both interpret and create law. Despite that, they gave the Supreme Court the explicit power to interpret and create law in many areas. There does not seem to have been any attempt on the part of the Founders to seek the quixotic goal of limiting the Court to merely interpreting the law. That it is even possible to limit a court to merely interpreting the law is a view born of ignorance of how law necessarily works.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Your response fails to address the point I made.

It's interesting to note that most of the Founders who wrote our Constitution were lawyers and thus intimately familiar with how a legal system works in practice. It would have come as no shock to them that courts naturally both interpret and create law. Despite that, they gave the Supreme Court the explicit power to interpret and create law in many areas. There does not seem to have been any attempt on the part of the Founders to seek the quixotic goal of limiting the Court to merely interpreting the law. That it is even possible to limit a court to merely interpreting the law is a view born of ignorance of how law necessarily works.

No you are going way into left field. Laws may change based on SC decisions, but your whole notion is what is wrong with the court. Reasonably interpreting the constitution does not warrant abortion as a right. It can only be construed, when the destination is put in front of the journey, and when a Justice thinks "only ignorant people would limit my power merely to a reasonable reading of the constitution"

 

[Sunstone]

No you are going way into left field. Laws may change based on SC decisions, but your whole notion is what is wrong with the court. Reasonably interpreting the constitution does not warrant abortion as a right. It can only be construed, when the destination is put in front of the journey, and when a Justice thinks "only ignorant people would limit my power merely to a reasonable reading of the constitution"

It seems to me that your view is more grounded in idle ideology than in knowledge of how the law works in practice. It's my contention that no one, regardless of their political views or affiliation, can in practice separate the activity of interpreting law from the activity of creating law, and that the effort to do so is an impossibly idealistic one that is bound to fail. If this fact makes what courts do wrong, then what is your alternative to having courts?

 

[Pah]

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:f4i8_8LAUoQJ:www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm+abortion+polls&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Poll results have been mixed. I agree, ceridwen, the popular majority has no business passing legistlation, but the SC has no right to act like legislators either.

I keep hearing from you that the Supreme Court legislates. Can you name any bill they have passed? Did they send it to the President for his signature? You must still be confused even after it has been explained time and time again. But I'll gladly bow to your knowledge if the bill is named and the President signed it.

:biglaugh: Could the President veto a bill the Supreme Court passes?

Explain it please or find another way to voice your displeasure of the decisions the Supreme Court makes.

 

[Mister Emu]

I have seen this quote on a few websites... and before I said anything about it I would like to know if anyone can either verify or show this to be false...

Basically is it true that Thomas Jefferson said this -
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

 

[Pah]

I have seen this quote on a few websites... and before I said anything about it I would like to know if anyone can either verify or show this to be false...

Basically is it true that Thomas Jefferson said this -
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

The quote is furnished there as a letter from Jeffereson to William C. Jarvis. This and other quotes are intended as a contrast to the holdings of Marbury v Madison written by John Marshal. It should be noted that this and other Marshal Court decisions went against Jefferson. But Jefferson can be said to be of a different philosophical opinion as to the balance of power in the government. I'm not sure the emity between the two is entirely philosophical but Marshal prevailed.

 

[kevmicsmi]

It seems to me that your view is more grounded in idle ideology than in knowledge of how the law works in practice. It's my contention that no one, regardless of their political views or affiliation, can in practice separate the activity of interpreting law from the activity of creating law, and that the effort to do so is an impossibly idealistic one that is bound to fail. If this fact makes what courts do wrong, then what is your alternative to having courts?

Of course you need courts, what bothers me is when the court finds rights in the constitution that arent there like abortion. I guess you are trying to dance with me on the choice of my words because you cant dispute my main point. WHEN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES A DECISION BECAUSE HE\SHE THINKS ITS A GOOD IDEA INSTEAD OF BASING IT ON A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUION, THEY ARE ACTING LIKE LEGISLATORS! You dont see a baseball umpire, or a football ref etc change the rules in a game because they think its a good idea, they are bound by the rule book. SC justices should be the same way. Some havent been this way, my solution is to elect presidents who have the conviction to nominate justices who are not so pious and conceited to think they should not be bound by the constitution.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I keep hearing from you that the Supreme Court legislates. Can you name any bill they have passed? Did they send it to the President for his signature? You must still be confused even after it has been explained time and time again. But I'll gladly bow to your knowledge if the bill is named and the President signed it.

:biglaugh: Could the President veto a bill the Supreme Court passes?

Explain it please or find another way to voice your displeasure of the decisions the Supreme Court makes.

I didnt say they legislate, i said they act like legislators. See the above post for my explanation. You certainly havent responded to my request of the constitutional validity of roe v wade have you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didnt say they legislate, i said they act like legislators.[\quote]

One cannot act like a legislator unless one passes laws like a legislator.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I didnt say they legislate, i said they act like legislators.[\quote]

One cannot act like a legislator unless one passes laws like a legislator.

Unless you have the mindset of a legislator, which unfortunately some justices have.

 

[Pah]

I didnt say they legislate, i said they act like legislators. See the above post for my explanation. You certainly havent responded to my request of the constitutional validity of roe v wade have you?

The constitutional validity of Roe v Wade lies in the 9th and 14th Amendments and all the precedents it used. I think I've said some of this before.

Tell us how they act like legislators. Show us one bill they passed.

Are legislators - act like legislators. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Pah]

Unless you have the mindset of a legislator, which unfortunately some justices have.

Provide one Supreme Court case that shows the absence of constitutional in the decision. You have trouble finding a bill that that they passed so noe I challenge you to supply a case where only a judge's opinion, outside the contitution, prevails.