Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (163229)	3/7/2003 1:00:21 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573811

Are you saying that judges should be free to say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean and that they should not care what the constitution, or other laws actually say? Actually, it depends on whether the judge was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican <g>.

To: TimF who wrote (163229)	3/7/2003 6:45:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573811

You fail to make an effective, or for that matter even an ineffective, argument. You don't even really state your opinion clearly. Are you saying that judges should be free to say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean and that they should not care what the constitution, or other laws actually say? I did make an effective remark but you don't understand enough of what you said to understand my response. In your earlier post, you said that "judges shouldn't change the laws or the Constitution". Well, they don't......never have, never will. What they do do is interpret laws to determine their constitutionality or their fairness. When they are proven to be unconstitutional, then legislatures may change the law....that's their job, not the courts. I haven't followed the particulars of the "under God" case closely but from what I understand its a controversial ruling and before the law can be changed, Bush has kicked it up to the Sup. Ct. I am assuming that the S. Ct. has agreed to review the case. If the Court rules that it is unconstitutional, then the law will be changed by Congress. However, I don't think an amendment to the Constitution will be required because I don't think the GOP used that form to get the words put into the Pledge of Allegiance. So, your post was off.......only Congress or state legislatures can change the law and not the courts. The most the courts can do is interpret the law. The GOP hates that role of the courts because so many of the unconstitutional and unjust laws the GOP has been behind have been knocked down by the courts. And what's annoying is you speak so highly of the Constitution and it was the Constitution and the FFathers who set up this arrangement. ted