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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (9704)	2/18/2012 1:29:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Segregation went on for a 100 years. Why didn't the legislature change it? Because a lot of people didn't want them to. We live in a democratic republic that's generally good, but democracy isn't perfect because people aren't perfect. What do you do about a situation like that? You do what was done, you convince enough people, and enough politicians to make changes. If you had given the courts the unambiguous legal power to impose such a decision against popular objection, and the objections against the other branches of government, they wouldn't have done so anyway, not at the time when segregation was imposed, or for most of its existence (and if they did the other branches might have ignored it, causing a constitutional crisis). Maybe at the end, when things are turning against it anyway, you cut out a few years of delay, so you get 97 years instead of 100. Is the possibility (not certainty by any means) of that enough to toss out the separation of powers, and risk the courts imposing injustices or other problems that can't be dealt with because of the power you gave the courts?