SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Ilaine who wrote (99421)2/8/2005 8:33:40 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793754
 
The judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it up. The constitution of the United States does not give judges the power to make law. They have, at least in some areas, and with some decisions effectively seized that power.

Stare decisis makes some sense but it shouldn't be an overriding principle. If the interpretation really was wrong it should be changed, but the principle is good to the extent it keeps frivolous changes, or frequent back and forth changes on important issues from happening.

Tim



To: Ilaine who wrote (99421)2/8/2005 8:34:28 PM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793754
 
In the US, a common law country for the most part, judges do make law, and the rest of us are bound to follow that. It's called stare decisis

I think most people have a problem with the ambiguity. Language is fudgy, and it's the job of judges to pin the fudge to the wall and call it "law".

Derek


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News