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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (28610)	2/9/2004 1:53:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793851

Constitution does impose limits on the majority So, you do get it after all. I misunderstood. So much of the commentary sounds like folks think that the Constitution says "majority rules and screw everyone else " and that the courts have no right to interfere with the will of the majority. I thought that's what you were arguing. If you do get it that there is an inherent conflict between democracy and Constitutional rights, then it becomes a question of differing interpretation of the Constitution, not a question of the role of the courts. Instead of being the protector of the Constitution, which is the role the founders envision, and I submit the appropriate role in a democracy where federal judges are appointed for life, the Courts have become a super legislature imposing their view of the good, the true and the beautiful upon the populace against the overwhelming will of the majority. Or maybe that is what you are arguing, after all. I can't be sure. If it is the job of the courts to set the majority straight when it is violating someone's Constitutional rights, then it logically follows that judges have to be appointed. If they have to stand for election, then they will just echo the legislators and there would be no check. Going up against the majority to defend the little guy is no job for someone who must stand for reelection. Doing the right thing is often unpopular. Therefore, the judges have to be appointed and given tenure. The effect of this is that people believe that their vote doesn't matter and you can't beat the system People have to believe that the system works in the long run even though they might not like particular decisions. People have to really believe in their hearts that the founders were wise with their checks and balances and that it's better in the long run to endure a few lousy decisions than to undo the structure. After all, we never know when we will find ourselves the little guy up against the majority. To undo that is to invite tyranny. where would you place a limit and say the Courts have overstepped their bounds. I think the courts are all wet on the death penalty. And I think the Mass court is over-the-top in saying that civil unions will not suffice to protect the rights of homosexuals. Whether they are "overstepping" or they and I just have a difference of opinion is arguable. When the courts do something I don't agree with, it's easy to look at it as overstepping but that doesn't make it so. Another point on overstepping. Often the legislatures intentionally leave holes to be filled by the courts because legislatures cannot reach agreement. The ADA is a case in point, one we discussed here not too long ago. We can't blame the whole "legislating" problem on the courts. Those elected representative of which you are so fond wimp out in favor of the courts way too often. The courts should be interpreting legislative oversights, not what the legislators left intentionally murky. We have mechanisms to deal with overstepping. We have higher courts that put lower courts in their place all the time. The only court that has a free hand is the Supreme Court. And if we don't like what they do, there's always the Constitutional amendment. In addition, impeachment is a pretty good tool. I think the notion that we are helpless in the face of legislating courts is overwrought. We don't use the tools we have to control the courts very often. Why not? Could it be that the courts are working more or less as intended and that, while leaders fuss about overstepping, down deed they understand the difference between overstepping and not liking a decision and down deep they know that it's part of the game, wink, wink. Another thing we have to keep in mind about courts and public opinion is that the political winds shift faster than the court changes. The delayed reaction can be frustrating, but it's probably a good thing in the long run because it keeps courts more conservative in the sense of not rash. I think we could do a better job of picking judges. I wish we picked more based on wisdom rather than politics. But then, that's politics. Karen