Seperation of powers.

[SlyHunter]

I have a pet peeve where sometimes it seems the courts try to make law which is the job of the legislatures. Some courts try to force their legislators into making specific laws like legalization of homosexual marriage in Massachussetts I think it was. It is suppose to be the job of legislators to write laws and the courts to enforce those laws. However this latest news items twists things around a bit and could be just as devestating to our American system of seperation of powers. Don't get me wrong I understand why they are doing it, they are trying to fix a problem but are they creating a new problem by doing so? Course the judges aren't elected officials so maybe their solution is the best solution?


According to bill sponsor Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act, or H.R. 3920, is needed to stop judges who "legislate from the bench" by issuing decisions that are contrary to the values of the majority of Americans. He cited the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage as one example.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/27/National/House.Bill.Would.Give.Congress.Power.To.Overrule.Supreme.Court-663030.shtml


WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) has offered legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Congress to overturn future U.S. Supreme Court decisions by a super majority vote.

"The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act," or H.R. 3920, would give Congress permission to override certain U.S. Supreme Court rulings if two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote for it.

Lewis said he drafted this legislation to combat the activist judges who have been "legislating from the bench" in recent years.

"America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans," Lewis observed in a statement.

Lewis states the judiciary has ceased interpreting the law and is now making law.

"The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate," Lewis continued, referring to the controversial ruling issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Court late last year that legalizes gay marriage in that state beginning next month.

"These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation's traditions," Lewis concluded.

Restoring a proper amount of checks and balances is the key to this legislation, Lewis added.

This legislation would be limited to rulings dealing with the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress only.

Yet, Lewis said the American people deserve to have their representatives in Congress decide for them whether or not a judicial ruling is right or not.
...

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/april/0416_judicial_activism_act.shtml
Then again it looks like exactly what we are looking for.

[zimv20]

my pet peeves are the misspelling of "separation" and the rampant use of the word "that," instead of "who," when referring to people.

[miloblithe]

It is suppose to be the job of legislators to write laws and the courts to enforce those laws.

Close, but no cigar. It's the job of the executive to enforce the law. The role of the courts is to interpret the law. But that's a very oversimplistic model; the reality depends greatly on the actual design of the institutions of government and on the particular governing traditions of those institutions.

zimv20,
Slyhunter also consistantly uses "your" when he means "you're." However, speaking as a writer/editor, grammatical and spelling mistakes are the least of this guy's problems.

[SlyHunter]

Close, but no cigar. It's the job of the executive to enforce the law. The role of the courts is to interpret the law. But that's a very oversimplistic model; the reality depends greatly on the actual design of the institutions of government and on the particular governing traditions of those institutions.

zimv20,
Slyhunter also consistantly uses "your" when he means "you're." However, speaking as a writer/editor, grammatical and spelling mistakes are the least of this guy's problems.
Well I got kicked out of college for flunking English had 4.0 with logic, math, and programmin tho. Didn't realize you had to be an English major in order to I have a valid opinion.

[Desertrat]

SlyHunter, a lot of the problem arises from the interpretations by different people and different judges of words in laws or in the Constitution. "Cruel and unusual" is a good example.

The fly in the ointment of your earlier comment is in "According to bill sponsor Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act, or H.R. 3920, is needed to stop judges who "legislate from the bench" by issuing decisions that are contrary to the values of the majority of Americans."

First, Lewis is assuming that the decision is indeed contrary to the values of the majority. Maybeso, maybe not. Second, the laws as written on certain issues don't deal with moral values, and those values are irrelevant. I note that values of the majority change with time--slavery, for instance.

Some judicial decisions as to constitutionality do break new ground and have the effect of creating law. Seems to me that in certain cases, "It's damned well about time it were done!"

'Rat

[zimv20]

zimv20,
Slyhunter also consistantly uses "your" when he means "you're." However, speaking as a writer/editor, grammatical and spelling mistakes are the least of this guy's problems.
oh, i was just talking in general. i thought we were doing pet peeves.

[SlyHunter]

SlyHunter, a lot of the problem arises from the interpretations by different people and different judges of words in laws or in the Constitution. "Cruel and unusual" is a good example.

The fly in the ointment of your earlier comment is in "According to bill sponsor Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act, or H.R. 3920, is needed to stop judges who "legislate from the bench" by issuing decisions that are contrary to the values of the majority of Americans."

First, Lewis is assuming that the decision is indeed contrary to the values of the majority. Maybeso, maybe not. Second, the laws as written on certain issues don't deal with moral values, and those values are irrelevant. I note that values of the majority change with time--slavery, for instance.

Some judicial decisions as to constitutionality do break new ground and have the effect of creating law. Seems to me that in certain cases, "It's damned well about time it were done!"

'Rat
But who better to judge the values of the majority of Americans a bunch of Judges who were selected by bureacrats to sit for life in their bench (supreme court) or legislatures who have to get the approval of the people every 4 years to keep their jobs? Doesn't mean they'll be right, but maybe more right than life time judges.

[miloblithe]

Well I got kicked out of college for flunking English had 4.0 with logic, math, and programmin tho. Didn't realize you had to be an English major in order to I have a valid opinion.

That was the point I was making. Your spelling errors and whatnot are besides the point. You didn't respond, I see, to my point that you don't even understand what the idea of separation of powers means and which branches of government are responsible for what.

[SlyHunter]

That was the point I was making. Your spelling errors and whatnot are besides the point. You didn't respond, I see, to my point that you don't even understand what the idea of separation of powers means and which branches of government are responsible for what.
This isn't a college course and I am not interested in your grading me. Nevertheless believe it or not I do know about the executive brance, legislator branch, and judicial branch. Apparently I'm a tad bit smarter than you give me credit for.

[zimv20]

legislator branch
Apparently I'm a tad bit smarter than you give me credit for.
oh, the irony

[SlyHunter]

nice


you've only been here a few days, and i get the impression that a number of people don't think you're terribly smart. i wonder why that is.
Save your personal insults for someone else.

[poopyhead]

First of all, many judges are elected
second
American judges have always been activist
Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison authored an amazingly activist decision within the first 30 years of our grand republic
further, judges are not apolitical, they like many others who hold political office have political allegiances (example: Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are allied with right wing conservatives who would like to rob us of our God granted and state protected rights in order to bring about a heavy handed law and order plutocracy which would allow for greater security and ease for the plutocrats in the amassing of their wealth)
When conservatives are in power liberal judges tend to become activist When liberals are in power the conservatives tend to become activist
this is one of the checks and balances
we have a judiciary full of judges who due to their long service are less likely to be swayed by calls for change from the fickle masses whipped into a frenzy by amoral vote whores (politicians)
The judiciary is one of the great american institutions. they are the one group the downtrodden can call upon for relief from the tyranny of the masses. they are the lone protector of rights from the awesome and far reaching power of the government.

[pseudobrit]

you've only been here a few days, and i get the impression that a number of people don't think you're terribly smart. i wonder why that is.

I was more worried with his lack of tact and fact.

Say that 10 times fast.

[pseudobrit]

Save your personal insults for someone else.

Pardon us our frustration.

Perhaps if you saved your ************ and spamming for somewhere else...

[zimv20]

lack of tact and fact.

Say that 10 times fast.
good one. one of my faves is still, "you need unique new york. new york needs unique you." it's part of my acting warmup.

[zimv20]

Save your personal insults for someone else.
i edited it. just for you.

[Thanatoast]

Not to address the issue raised in the opening post or anything...

In the case of Mass. and the gay marriage case, judges are not legislating from the bench. Bush talks about activist judges, and what these judges are doing is actively enforcing a law that is already on the books. The state constitution gaurantees equal treatment for all citizens under the law, so the state supreme court had no choice but to find in favor of gay marriage. Bush likes to make it sound like these judges are writing new laws and forcing them on the people, when all they're doing is enforcing what's already there. Bush is just upset because he has to look like the bad guy taking rights away from people. It doesn't help that he actually *is* the bad buy.

As for that law being sponsored, it's probably one of the worst ideas any legislator has had. Politicians are much more willing to walk all over the minority in the name of political expediency. The SC not only should, but needs to be independent of the legislature.

[Ugg]

Would this even be legal? I didn't realize that Congress could do anything to limit the powers of the judiciary. Even if it is, it would require a super majority vote and so would be essentially a non-issue unless we are stupid enough to have one party controlling by houses by a super majority.

Whether or not, it just sounds like a bad idea all around. If there is one thing that is truly great about the US is the separation of powers.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, I'm dubious that such a bill could pass. Then, if it did, somebody undoubtedly would take it to the courts, and I'd bet SCOTUS would kill it in a heartbeat.

Congress can pass whatever some amount of majority wants; 50% +1, or 2/3 or whatever. If it's signed into law, it's always subject to a SCOTUS decision as to constitutionality.

'Rat