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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6713)	7/3/2003 3:46:30 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7720

If the Supremes choose to step in and undo such legislation, they are, IMO, putting themselves above the elected legislators and executives and tilting the government so that we do not have three equal branches, but have one superior and two subservient branches, who may only pass laws which the Supremes agree with. That's silly. I realize that sometimes they do impose their opinions and frame it as judicial oversight, like they did in the Michigan case and use their opinions as a personal soapbox. Yet, despite some overreach and a generally bad 'tude, it is still their job to undo legislative stuff that doesn't conform with the Constitution. That doesn't make then superior, just different. Even when they're doing their job as they're supposed to, it might seem that way because they come after the legislature in the process, that that doesn't make them superior any more than the guy who puts the ball in the hoop is superior to the guy who fed it to him. I don't find any provision in the Constitution that prohibits laws governing any of those things Try the ninth amendment. The government is supposed to do only what the Constitution says it can, not everything the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit. And then there's the first one, that silly business about freedom of speech and assembly. I'll bid four hearts any time I damn well please.