I would only say the court is trying to legislate from the bench, or create new law, if it makes a decision that is not supported by the law itself (including the constitution).
No, they are not. When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade, new law had to be created on the state level to accomodate their interpretation of the Constitution on abortions. That's what I mean by creating new law. Its the legislatures that actually enact the courts' interpretations and make them into law. And its happened many times.....not just with Roe vs Wade.
they are looking for ways to invalidate or limit the role of the courts........you included.
When the constitution calls for it I would like the courts to be active. The only limit I would put on the courts is to base their decision on the constitution itself and not any "emanations and penumbras", or "evolving opinion", or decisions of courts overseas. And really the only good way I can see for this to happen is the courts themselves to change how they act. I can't see how the legislature or the executive could effectively impose such discipline on the courts.
In this area, the courts have broad powers that were established early in our history:
Message 21212394
If the city of Seattle votes into law an ordinance that discriminates against Jews, then that ordinance is undemocratic.
No, it would be unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and all around bad. You could even say that it is "not good for our democracy", but the law itself would not be undemocratic, and would only have undemocratic results if the law including taking away or limiting their legal right to vote, or their ability to exercise that right.
Your simply not applying the correct definition to the word "undemocratic".
Sorry we are arguing semantics but this one is important. A law can not be democratic when it excludes or limits the rights of one group of people even if the majority approve it. 'Democratic' requires that in addition to "the rule of the majority" that there be "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"........from Websters.
ted |
