The Judiciary

[melon]

Well...?

I think Tom DeLay would vote #4.

Melon

 

[ava83]

Do you think that maybe to get the Judges through they are going to allow a stall on this UN guy..Bolton?

 

[nbcrusader]

All the partisian bickering is actually evidence of an independent judiciary.

If the Legislative or Executive branch had any "control" over the judiciary, the actual selection of judges would not be so important.

The Democrats had no problem appointing "activist" judges for years. Now, it apparently is a problem.

Same dance, different day.

 

[melon]

Well, here's the joke that I think is lost:

So many of the "activist judges" people like DeLay are whining about were appointed by *Republicans.* Judge Greer in the Terri Shiavo case? Appointed by a Republican. Gay marriage-friendly judges? A good number of them were appointed by Republicans.

So what is an "activist judge" then? Just someone who disagrees with the Republican Party currently in power? Arrogance and irrationality are going to be the GOP's downfall.

Melon

 

[ImOuttaControl]

The role of a judge is to enforce the law. Congress passes laws. The President signs laws. Every law must follow the Constitution unless it is amended. Checks and balances.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Arrogance and irrationality are going to be the GOP's downfall.

Melon

Wouldn't that be ironic. That's the exact same reason for the downfall of the Democratic Party.

 

[melon]

Wouldn't that be ironic. That's the exact same reason for the downfall of the Democratic Party.

There's a reason that political parties fall in and out of favor over time.

Melon

 

[verte76]

The judiciary should be independent.

 

[nbcrusader]

So what is an "activist judge" then? Just someone who disagrees with the Republican Party currently in power? Arrogance and irrationality are going to be the GOP's downfall.

Democrats are tossing this term around with equal abandon.

It use to have a much narrower definition as used - one that applied to constitutional interpretation. Now, sadly, it is just a disagreement with party politics.

 

[melon]

Democrats are tossing this term around with equal abandon.

It use to have a much narrower definition as used - one that applied to constitutional interpretation. Now, sadly, it is just a disagreement with party politics.

I think the term is utterly meaningless and is the result of a complete ignorance of judicial history. The existence of judges that have applied conservative or liberal interpretations of the Constitution are as old as the judiciary itself. The real arrogance of the Republican Party is that they think that only conservative judges are the only real judges. Sorry, but history would laugh in their face.

Stacking the judiciary with narrow-minded conservatives (and Bush sure knows how to pick 'em) would lead to only one thing: an Iranian-style judiciary that is nothing more than an overhead for theocracy and a true subversion of democracy. After all, Iran sees itself as a "democracy" too.

Melon