Seperation of powers.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SlyHunter, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    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?

    http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/april/0416_judicial_activism_act.shtml
    Then again it looks like exactly what we are looking for.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    my pet peeves are the misspelling of "separation" and the rampant use of the word "that," instead of "who," when referring to people.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    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.
     
  4. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    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
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    oh, i was just talking in general. i thought we were doing pet peeves.
     
  7. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #7
    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.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    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.
     
  9. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    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.
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    oh, the irony
     
  11. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #11
    Save your personal insults for someone else.
     
  12. poopyhead macrumors 6502a

    poopyhead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    in the toe-jam of greatness (Fort Worth)
    #12
    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.
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    I was more worried with his lack of tact and fact.

    Say that 10 times fast.
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    Pardon us our frustration.

    Perhaps if you saved your bull**** and spamming for somewhere else...
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    OT

    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.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    i edited it. just for you.
     
  17. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    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
     

Share This Page