Solution to "activist judges"

[epicstruggle]

Someone on Chris Mathews show made a suggestion that instead of marriage amendment, we should instead have an amendment that:
"Only a 2/3 (or greater) majority decision could make a law unconstitutional"

Wow, so simple and it would solve so many really crappy decisions and make it less likely that the constitution would be touched.

later,
epic

 

[Sazar]

Someone on Chris Mathews show made a suggestion that instead of marriage amendment, we should instead have an amendment that:
"Only a 2/3 (or greater) majority decision could make a law unconstitutional"

Wow, so simple and it would solve so many really crappy decisions and make it less likely that the constitution would be touched.

later,
epic

but is that 2/3'rds of the population or 2/3'rds by the lovely caucus setup?

 

[Natoma]

Someone on Chris Mathews show made a suggestion that instead of marriage amendment, we should instead have an amendment that:
"Only a 2/3 (or greater) majority decision could make a law unconstitutional"

Wow, so simple and it would solve so many really crappy decisions and make it less likely that the constitution would be touched.

later,
epic

I'm sure no matter how the decision apparatus changed, if the outcome was the sort that met with the disapproval of certain people, they would still see the need to refer to judges as "activist judges." Something I wrote earlier.

Returning to the legal aspect of what is occurring today in Massachusetts and San Francisco, I find it tickling in a sense that President Bush and his supporters have labeled the ruling body in Massachusetts as "activist judges," and Gavin Newsom as "law breakers." I prefer to look back upon history and take a different interpretation on this matter.

If President Bush had been President in 1967, it stands to reason that he would have called the Supreme Court of this nation's decision in Loving vs Virginia the act of "activist judges." And yet, today we do not see their decisions in Loving vs Virginia as such, but as judges upholding the rights of the minority against the tyrannical will of the majority, as writ in the constitution.

If President Bush had been President in 1955 when Rosa Parks decided she would not relinquish her seat on the bus and move to the back as the law stipulated, it stands to reason that he would have called her a "law breaker." And yet, today we do not see her actions as such, but as a woman who helped spark over a decades worth of prominent civil disobedience.

I'm sure 50 years ago, a lot of people thought that Brown vs Board of Education and Loving vs Virginia were some of the many "crappy" supreme court decisions. They make decisions based on what they interpret as constitutionally sound. Whether you agree with it or not, for instance I disagree with the 1986 Bowers vs Hardwick upholding of the sodomy laws in georgia, overturned thankfully in the 2003 Lawrence vs Texas case, the courts are there for a reason, i.e. to act as a 3rd party legal outlet to counterbalance the powers of the executive and legislative branches.

I simply hate the term "activist judges" used to try and slander the courts today for ruling in the way they have. It's obvious that it's nothing but slander in an attempt to discredit their decisions as those of "radical" nature and nothing more.

 

[epicstruggle]

but is that 2/3'rds of the population or 2/3'rds by the lovely caucus setup?

Im not sure what this means. But 2/3's of the # of judges in the Supreme court. So instead of having 5 to 4 decisions, we would have to have 6 to 3 decisions.

Natoma, look at it this way. I think you would hate it if having just 1 judge replaced would cause the scales to be tipped in our favor (assuming bush gets a chance). Having decisions _CLEARLY_ won would make "swallowing the pill" more palatable(sp?).

later
epic

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, look at it this way. I think you would hate it if having just 1 judge replaced would cause the scales to be tipped in our favor (assuming bush gets a chance). Having decisions _CLEARLY_ won would make "swallowing the pill" more palatable(sp?).

later
epic

Whether you agree with it or not, for instance I disagree with the 1986 Bowers vs Hardwick upholding of the sodomy laws in georgia, overturned thankfully in the 2003 Lawrence vs Texas case, the courts are there for a reason, i.e. to act as a 3rd party legal outlet to counterbalance the powers of the executive and legislative branches.

Now I was 8 or 9 at the time of the Bowers vs Hardwick ruling, so I wouldn't frankly have cared or been aware either way, but the point is that it has ruled "against me" in the past, and I'm sure there were some unhappy people in that regard.

And as to what you stated regarding the "1 judge" swap. Well, would you (or bush for that matter) then be beholden calling the judges "activist" if they ruled the other way? Besides, if the judges still ruled in favor of "me" at least when it came to gay rights cases, someone would say, well, it should be unanimous! You can always raise the bar some how if you're not happy with the result. All I'm saying.

 

[epicstruggle]

And as to what you stated regarding the "1 judge" swap. Well, would you (or bush for that matter) then be beholden calling the judges "activist" if they ruled the other way? Besides, if the judges still ruled in favor of "me" at least when it came to gay rights cases, someone would say, well, it should be unanimous! You can always raise the bar some how if you're not happy with the result. All I'm saying.

Actually the guy on CM's was suggesting a 9-0 vote to make a law unconstitutional, i instead thought 2/3's was better. I doubt many decisions have been so clear cut to have a 9-0 vote

later,
epic