MInTheGap

Continuing the Court Discussion

Strangecloud posed a very interesting dilemma to my idea in the last
post.  His point was that Judicial Review was put into place as part of
checks and balances in the government.  If I remember my history
correctly, Judicial Review was actually a creation of a certain Supreme
Court (I want to say Marshall, but I may be mistaken).  In fact, even
at the time it was quite controversial.

There is a movement inside congress to restrict judicial review over
topics such as homosexuality and school prayer.  The problem is that
the judiciary has become all powerful, casting rulings on controversial
issues that should be decided by the country’s populace and not the
“enlightened” thinkers on the bench.

The part that even gets
me more riled up is the fact that when the citizens do speak through
their representatives about issues such as abortion and school prayer,
these same justices have the audacity to say that their ruling trumps
the clear reading and the people’s wishes.

My point is that
since it seems impossible to keep these justices in check via
legislation and since people put so much weight on how a justice will
rule on moral issues (not issues of Consititutional understanding),
that we need to take away or scale back that power.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

CBS and the Courts

I have a solution for the whole Dan Rather crisis.  I think that CBS
should get a new line at the beginning of 60 Minutes.  “One of these
stories is false, can you guess which one?”  Then at the end they could
tell you which one.  That way, people could be skeptical, trying to
guess which one the whole time.  Maybe they could tie it in with the
CBSNews.com website so that you could put in your guess.  If they would
make it so you could win CBS gear or something maybe the brand could be
healed.

There’s a story in the news about some legislation that is going
nowhere, but has a lot of potential.  The legislation is the bill to
protect the pledge of allegience from judicial review.  The democrats
are screaming that

1. It’s a moral issue that they have to go on the record about before an election.
2. That it hurts judicial review which we’ve had for 200 years

I think the second one is more interesting.  If we were to start
eroding the court’s power to review legislation (particularly on
abortion, homosexuality, Christianity, etc.) then the left could not
legislate from the bench.  That would make the court appointees less of
an issue, and maybe we could fill the benches back up with judges
instead of all of this fillibustering.

To clarify, the
Democrats are fillibustering because of how important those positions
are– because we have a judicial system who thinks that we like in an
oligarcy instead of a democratic-republic.  Take away their importance
in making these unpopular decisions and voila, the fillibuster could
disappear too.

Judicial Tyranny

What gives the rights to the nine men and women in robes to determine
right or wrong?  Certainly not the Constitution of the United States. 
It declared that the function of courts was to interpret the law, but
these courts have gotten out of hand.

When courts can find an imaginary right to privacy in the law, and
thereby kill millions of children before they are born, we should have
said this was too far.  I mean, think about it.  Whether you disagree
or agree with abortion, anyone knows that extrme caution should have
been taken on that ruling.  In the best case, they were only removing
tissue, but in the worst case, millions of lives could be lost because
of them.

Now we are bombarded with these blatantly false
statements about discrimination.  I was reading a thread the other day
where the person’s statement was that no where in our Constitution is
discrimination enshrined.  Has this person even read the Constitution? 
Without trying very hard, I can come up with at least two:  The
President must be an American Citizen, 35 yrs old or older.

Think about this… more later.