If your questions is where is it that we get those rights, well, surely that isn't your question.
Actually,that would be an interesting question to discuss. Are they natural rights, and if so, from what interpretation of natural rights? It's cute to say things are "self-evident," and is a fine sounding phrase, but of course in a political or philosophical sense meaningless. Are they God-given rights, and if so does X deserve to benefit from them as she doesn't believe in God?
But that actually wasn't my question. I agree with your "it isn't" the SC's job to protect those rights, whatever they are and from wherever they spring. But I stop there. I don't go on to say "but if the legislature and executive don't do it, the SC needs to step in." Because if you accept that, you accept that the SC should not only decide what the legislature should do, but the SC itself should do it. Which violates a fundamental premise of the division of powers. if the SC is going to take on legislative and executive duties along with judicial duties, then really we have changed our form of government dramatically. Which I, for one, am not willing to do. |
