2
   

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:07 am
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.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:42 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:38 am
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 12:21 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 12:55 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 01:12 pm
Joe, Reason sown on pounded sand seldom flowers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 01:22 pm
Excerpted:

Quote:
The egregious case of judicial usurpation in Florida is a wake-up call to conservatives, and we ought to use it to mount a serious and sustained challenge to the legal pragmatism that reigns in American law schools. That legal philosophy has reduced law to an instrument of social policy and turned judges into legislators.

At issue is the validity and viability of the rule of law itself. For if the courts make law, then why do we need legislative bodies? The courts would become a law unto themselves, which is precisely the monopoly of power that the separation of powers was designed to prevent. Restoring the separate functions of each branch of government is the surest institutional protection of American liberty. -- Nancy Pearcey


The whole essay:
http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_judges1200.htm
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 03:32 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 03:44 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 03:59 pm
Foxfyre: I don't know which is more formidable: your ability to misinterpret information or your capacity for self-delusion.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 10:16 am
"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.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 11:33 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 12:55 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 04:37 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 09:25 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 09:30 am
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.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 09:54 am
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...."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:07 am
And please explain how being religious is an 'establishment of religion'?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:09 am
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.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:13 am
damn activist judges!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 10:56:08