Foxfyre wrote:Judicial review absolutely when there are conflicts in interpretation of law. The law, however, should never be made by judges. Judges should interpret the law and rule on the letter and intent of the law. Once judges start deciding for themselves what the law should be, we are screwed for who is there to judge the judges?
This is a common error. Judges make law all the time. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that's what judges are supposed to do.
joefromchicago wrote: Judges make law all the time. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that's what judges are supposed to do.
Thanks! I was trying to make that point earlier. Joe said it much better than I did.
I don't disagree that some judges make law. I strenuously disagree that it is proper or beneficial for judges to make law. And I will wholeheartedly support anyone in a position to appoint judges who also believes it is improper and dangerous for judges to be in the business of making law.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't disagree that some judges make law.
You simply don't get it:
ALL judges make law. Conservative judges, liberal judges -- there isn't a single judge in the US who doesn't make law.
Sorry Joe. I simply disagree. I believe there are judges out there who interpret the law and are diligent in determining the letter and intent of the law that exists. Many--I hope most--do not presume to decide what that think the law should be.
Joe, Reason sown on pounded sand seldom flowers.
Foxfyre: You don't know what you're talking about. You parrot the idiotic statements of those who don't know what they are talking about. You stare contrary facts in the face and dismiss them with a simplistic "I disagree." And, when you attempt to support your position, you cite people who know even less about the subject than you do.
Apart from that, you're doing a fine job.
Fine Joe. I didn't insult you with my opinion, but I'll accept your personally directed insult as proof you're out of ammunition.
Foxfyre: I don't know which is more formidable: your ability to misinterpret information or your capacity for self-delusion.
"Freedom of Religion" was not intended to mean that we are not allowed to express religion for fear of imposing on others; it means that we are free to express what we think or do not think. All of this nonsense about the Pledge of Allegiance being against "Freedom of Religion" is incorrect. Freedom of Religion means that we are free to express religion; those who do not believe are free to express that as well.
Thalion wrote:All of this nonsense about the Pledge of Allegiance being against "Freedom of Religion" is incorrect. Freedom of Religion means that we are free to express religion; those who do not believe are free to express that as well.
Some of that is nonsense but there is an unresolved question whether it is appropriate to include "under God' for students saying the pledge in public school. The angle there is that the government is restricted from expressing religion, not we as private citizens.
It is not that the government is restricted from expressing religion; it is that no person is restricted from having different beliefs and expressing them. If someone doesn't believe in God, they can simply not say that part.
Thank you Talion. You are absolutely correct at least from the perspective of the writers of the Constitution as I have been taught and as I read them. There is zero prophibition intended for government or anything related to it to be religious. The only thing prohibited is that no one shall be coerced or required to adhere to whatever religious beliefs are featured.
Thalion, Foxfyre,
The first amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." To me, this means government is restricted in the area of religion.
No, the amendment concludes with ...or the free exercise thereof. It didn't restrict government from that 'free exercise". It does not restrict government from being religious. It only restricts government from requiring anybody else to be religious.
The first amendment has 2 clauses related to religion. It prohibits congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion"
"or respecting the free exercise thereof...."
And please explain how being religious is an 'establishment of religion'?
As a refresher, here is the text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
