Judicial Branch

[Bob S.]

This is kind of an offshoot of the discussions coming from the Pat Robertson topic. I say kind of because I was already considering this as a topic before that.

Why is it that so many people are averse to the Judciary? Is it because of the unelected nature and lifetime appointments of the judges?

I learned in school that the Judicial Brance of the US government was a part of the balance of power. It holds an important role by deciding if laws are constitutional or not. It is not (or at least should not be or have) a social influence. All decisions should be based on the interpretation of the Constitution and case law.

Should the judges be publicly elected? My answer is no. I would hate to see the commercials urging the public to "vote" for a certain judge. Their own personal beliefs on a certain topic ideally should not take precedent over the Constitution.

Watching and hearing some excerpts of the Roberts' confirmation hearings, I have realized that it is wholly inappropriate to ask a judge and for a judge to answer, what he thinks of a certain topic. The arguments should be the judge's determining factor, not necessarily a pre-conceived notion.

Are they activist? Activist, in my opinion deals with saying what a law should say instead of simply declairing a law good or bad. Have there been activist rulings? Probably. If you can name any, feel free.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

This is kind of an offshoot of the discussions coming from the Pat Robertson topic. I say kind of because I was already considering this as a topic before that.

Why is it that so many people are averse to the Judciary? Is it because of the unelected nature and lifetime appointments of the judges?

I learned in school that the Judicial Brance of the US government was a part of the balance of power. It holds an important role by deciding if laws are constitutional or not. It is not (or at least should not be or have) a social influence. All decisions should be based on the interpretation of the Constitution and case law.

Should the judges be publicly elected? My answer is no. I would hate to see the commercials urging the public to "vote" for a certain judge. Their own personal beliefs on a certain topic ideally should not take precedent over the Constitution.

Watching and hearing some excerpts of the Roberts' confirmation hearings, I have realized that it is wholly inappropriate to ask a judge and for a judge to answer, what he thinks of a certain topic. The arguments should be the judge's determining factor, not necessarily a pre-conceived notion.

Are they activist? Activist, in my opinion deals with saying what a law should say instead of simply declairing a law good or bad. Have there been activist rulings? Probably. If you can name any, feel free.

Bob S.

[smoothm]

I don't believe that people in general are adverse to the Judicial branch of government. I do believe that people are concerned that Supreme Court rulings are over stepping their bounds by "making law" through judicial review. As a case in poimt let's talk about abortion. Row vs Wade found that abortion was legal in a Federal sense using the right to privacy as a basis in the ruling.

I believe that in such cases where the Constitution does not clearly define an issue, the case should be ruled as such and returned to the states to decide. In doing so, the powers of the states are preserved. The same should be done with same sex marriage. Marriage laws have always been a state issue not Federal. Many of the controversial rulings by the Supreme Court could have been sent back for the states to decide, but the Court, in making a ruling, has created law where no law previously existed.

As I have said before, the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice do not require legal training, just the ability to read and understand the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers deliberately set it up that way because it was thought that citizens should be able to read and understand the laws of the land as well as the states' rights vs Federal government.

Even though the justices have all had legal training, remember, to be a lawyer "back in the day" required study and apprenticeship rather more so than formal education.