« How to Win Friends and Influence People | Main | Wright to Remain Silent? Not Likely. »

May 18, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nick Commons-Miller

"How the Supreme Court Justices are able to establish themselves as the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution in order to amend it to make way for their own personal political agendas."

They are able to do this (since they are personally given the power to interpret the Constitution, which includes the possibility of misuse), and some do abuse it.

"This disregard for the Constitution is frightening in its own right, ... should not be tolerated."

They are supposed to be able to have this power. In turn, the legislative branch approves justices, and can pass amendments to the Constitution. It is the balance of power.

"Reliance on foreign constitutions to decide US public policy,"

"self-amending of the Constitution"

This is inaccurate. The Constitution is vague, and the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret whether or not something fits the Constitution. Their interpretation may differ from yours, as it may from anyone's, but it is not self-amending the Constitution. The legal system has to be able to have standards, otherwise there is no point of law. People would simply be determining everything for themselves.

"and interference in national elections are just a few of this Court's many transgressions."

I agree that the court can't decide national elections. That is surely outside of their power.

"Beginning ... establishing a new religion: secular humanism."

Establishing religious neutrality is just that, and is clearly not establishment of a religion. It by definition is the opposite.

The cases against homosexuality are religiously based (or based on personal moral standards), so the courts have ruled correctly. (since we cannot instate religious or personal moral standards into government)

"The Powell v. McCormack (1969) decision when Chief Justice Warren asserted that "it is the responsibility of this court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution" helped to set this extremely dangerous precedent."

It had already been set long before (1800s even), though that did contribute.

"More outrageous is the fact that on more than one occasion at least six Supreme Court justices have cited foreign documents in defense of their decisions."

What is the significance of this? If the thinking in a document is correct, it is correct regardless of the culture it came from.

"No matter ... of foreign nations. This nation is governed by its own laws and Constitution and endangers its own sovereignty by acting otherwise."

That is true, except I think that this point may be misleading. Are they using the constitutions as a legal justification, or citing them as valid thinking on the subject?

"Neither do the courts ... should rightly be beyond most people's comprehension."

No, because those judges are part of the legal system and part of their role includes having the power to make decisions like that. There is no constitutional document contradicting it either, so it is not an unconstitutional decision.

Systems of law are also meant to be somewhat flexible and malleable so that they can be changed and improved upon.

One of the central ideas of our law system is also indeed law determined by precedent, which is just what this is.

These people also aren't necessarily "activist judges" instating their personal beliefs just because they made a decision you disagree with.

"In the ... court."

So you are condemning the Florida court's actions? Something that could possibly produce a better outcome for Gore is not necessarily made to do that. It could be made to be more fair, and that could possibly produce a better outcome for Gore.

"America should protect itself from corruption within its own legal system, from the danger of judicial supremacy."

I agree with that, though I would say the case the author makes is not the strongest evidence of its prevalence.

The comments to this entry are closed.