however, its becoming a common complaint from the right and there is talk of changing the role of the courts or restricting them
For the most part I think they should restrict themselves. Every now and than they actually do that.
Why? There are checks on the courts already built into the system. I think you need to ask yourself why you and so many others from the right have such problems with the courts. Often, the right doesn't agree with the rulings even from conservative judges. That speaks volumes. And yet, the right chooses to ignore that fact. That, too, speaks volumes.
No, the judiciary is part of the checks and balances. Restricting the courts would be undemocratic.
The argument is that the courts have slipped off of their prime check and balance, that balance being that they are only supposed to interpret law not invent it.
That is ridiculous......utterly and completely ridiculous. It shows your lack of understanding of the courts and their role. I have said it before and I will say it just one more time..........interpretation of the law may well lead to new laws. That is the province of the courts. However, legislation must be created by the legislature before it can become a law. That is the system established by our FF.
I'm not pushing for some constitutional amendment to severely weaken the courts, but such an amendment would be neither undemocratic nor unconstitutional, even if it might be unwise. If such an amendment did pass I would not be a shock if it was poorly written, or to see it go to far or for it to not be accurately aimed at the problem. It might well have negative consequences, potentially very negative consequences, but it would if it came to pass, be voted in through the democratic process (and thus by definition it would not be undemocratic) and it would be part of the constitution (and thus by definition it could not be unconstitutional).
On the contrary, the courts would deem it unconstitutional, if not undemocratic. What you don't understand is that a law could be enacted democratically but may not democratic.
ted |
