Do you think the Founders were drunk when they included the Judicial branch?

Current Events » in reply to re: Note to those who gleefully override laws with legal rulings:

Robert — 9/8/2004 3:24:15 AM (archived)

Or maybe they knew what they were doing? I think so. The senior judiciary's explicit purpose is to scrutinize laws passed by the legislative branch to ensure that the legislators are conforming to the Constitution. It's their job to overrule the legislature when it violates the Constitution, and certainly blatant discrimination laws like a ban on gay marriage or the ban on interracial marriage decades ago fall under their legitimate purview.

Frankly, all this right-wing whining about "activist judges" is small-minded sour grapes. Have you no respect for the Consitution or the system of government it established? Where the hell would we all be if conservatives were granted their (seeming) wish to abolish the judiciary?

Thank god for checks-and-balances!

The whole thread (27 posts)

Judge rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional - Donald - 9/7/2004 7:46:59 PM
- Why should homosexuals not suffer along with the rest of us? - David F Mayer - 9/8/2004 8:30:14 PM
- Why the hell does the concept of gay marriage scare people? - R.L. - 9/8/2004 7:15:36 AM
  - Whenever someone has secret doubts about their own sexual orientation bravado and an attack posture is a good cover.......n/t (n/t) - Publius - 9/8/2004 2:24:32 PM
    - Good point. Reminds one of the secret life of J. Edger Hoover! (n/t) - m - 9/8/2004 4:47:34 PM
      - And it's amazing how long that lie has lasted. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 9/8/2004 11:08:31 PM
- Judge tosses out legitimate law to favor narrow special interest group. - ebnelson - 9/7/2004 8:55:47 PM
  - ed tosses out last vestige of intellect to favor narrow-mindedness. - Fox - 9/7/2004 9:44:31 PM
    - He's an idiot - Donald - 9/8/2004 3:53:42 AM
    - I can't imagine what this issue triggers in conservatives. - Bowser - 9/8/2004 12:01:13 AM
      - Even if conservatives were right to insist that the government stay out of our pockets - m - 9/8/2004 1:53:39 AM
- Note to Religious Right nutcases opposing gay marriage - m - 9/7/2004 8:05:39 PM
  - Nor did it before the will of the people was overturned by appointed judges. (n/t) - ebnelson - 9/7/2004 8:56:44 PM
    - Read the opinion -- judges in Washington State are elected. (n/t) - Fox - 9/8/2004 6:59:14 PM
    - "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" overturned the will of the people, too. - Mary Anne - 9/8/2004 2:55:17 AM
  - re: Note to those who gleefully override laws with legal rulings: - Tom Brosz - 9/7/2004 8:29:13 PM
    - Do you think the Founders were drunk when they included the Judicial branch? - Robert - 9/8/2004 3:24:15 AM
    - Note to those scrambling to shore up bad law with legal sophistry: - Fox - 9/7/2004 9:26:41 PM
      - I'm no legal expert by a long shot... - Tom Brosz - 9/8/2004 4:38:43 AM
        
        That's abundantly clear - Fox - 9/8/2004 10:06:09 PM
        
        "affirmative action" would have been a more accurate choice of words. Thanks! (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 9/8/2004 10:55:17 PM
    - So if a judge overrode a popular law barring unrelated, left-handed people from marrying - m - 9/7/2004 9:21:59 PM
      - Yeah, laugh it up guys. Keep it in mind someday when your ox is getting gored. - Tom Brosz - 9/8/2004 4:34:00 AM
        
        Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox . . . - Fox - 9/8/2004 6:56:26 PM
        
        My civil liberties are just fine, thanks. - Tom Brosz - 9/8/2004 11:03:49 PM
      - Note to m: note Fox's warning about sophistry. (n/t) - ebnelson - 9/7/2004 9:41:08 PM
        
        -- which you apparently didn't read, or if you read it, didn't understand - Fox - 9/7/2004 9:47:25 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (27 posts)