Enforcement of Court Opinions

[BR-549]

Since there were no laws being broken, Gov Bush had no authority to send troopers into the hospice. I'm alarmed by the number of people who seem to want throw the law aside any time they are in disagreement with it. If you don't like a law, get it changed. If you can't get it changed, you have two choices; live with it or find yourself another country/state.

Given that the courts are a non-democratic institution should they continue in their attempts to legislate from the bench it is my assertion that they are nothing but black robed despots. Hence a revolution to throw them out of power is not only a possibility but perhaps an inevitability; if we wish to live in a democratic society.. Viva la liberte, viva la revolucion!!!!

 

[ReillyT]

Given that the courts are a non-democratic institution should they continue in their attempts to legislate from the bench it is my assertion that they are nothing but black robed despots. Hence a revolution to throw them out of power is not only a possibility but perhaps an inevitability; if we wish to live in a democratic society.. Viva la liberte, viva la revolucion!!!!

Our founders (in their bountiful wisdom) did not want us to live in a fully democratic society. They rightly feared the oppresion of the minority in the face of an emotional or tyrannical majority. The judiciary is insulated from majoritarian pressures as a way of protecting the individual from the majority. I think we are fortunate to live in such a system.

The judiciary (the Supreme Court especially) has the difficult task of limiting the power of government (be it democratic or not) by reference to the Constitution (a vague instrument). While you and I may agree that, at times, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and that its interpretation is tenuous, I think the benefits of an active and strong judiciary in protecting our freedoms outweighs the detriments arising from those relatively rare occasions when they can honestly be accused of "legislating from the bench."

 

[Annie]

Our founders (in their bountiful wisdom) did not want us to live in a fully democratic society. They rightly feared the oppresion of the minority in the face of an emotional or tyrannical majority. The judiciary is insulated from majoritarian pressures as a way of protecting the individual from the majority. I think we are fortunate to live in such a system.

The judiciary (the Supreme Court especially) has the difficult task of limiting the power of government (be it democratic or not) by reference to the Constitution (a vague instrument). While you and I may agree that, at times, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and that its interpretation is tenuous, I think the benefits of an active and strong judiciary in protecting our freedoms outweighs the detriments arising from those relatively rare occasions when they can honestly be accused of "legislating from the bench."

I have to agree with you. The Framers knew by putting in both seperation of powers and checks and balances they were creating a system that would 'take forever to change'. It was purposeful. It would protect the minority, while letting the majority convince itself of the rightness or wrongness of their ideas. Messy? Yes. The best of the available? Yes. These men were geniuses.

 

[ReillyT]

These men were geniuses.

I agree. Everytime I think about our system of government, I become more convinced that our founders were absolutely brilliant.

 

[Annie]

I agree. Everytime I think about our system of government, I become more convinced that our founders were absolutely brilliant.

Agreed. Too bad their progeny leaves so much to be desired, from both sides of the aisle.

 

[ReillyT]

Agreed. Too bad their progeny leaves so much to be desired, from both sides of the aisle.

Agreed.

 

[MissileMan]

Given that the courts are a non-democratic institution should they continue in their attempts to legislate from the bench it is my assertion that they are nothing but black robed despots. Hence a revolution to throw them out of power is not only a possibility but perhaps an inevitability; if we wish to live in a democratic society.. Viva la liberte, viva la revolucion!!!!

Apparently you fail to understand that it wasn't the judge who came up with Florida's law about how to deal with people in Terry's condition...it was the Florida legislature. Attacking the courts is not going to get laws changed.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently you fail to understand that it wasn't the judge who came up with Florida's law about how to deal with people in Terry's condition...it was the Florida legislature. Attacking the courts is not going to get laws changed.

So you don't have a problem with them picking and choosing the issues they choose to act on?

 

[MissileMan]

So you don't have a problem with them picking and choosing the issues they choose to act on?

Which they are you referring to?

 

['ol Perfessor]

Our founders (in their bountiful wisdom) did not want us to live in a fully democratic society. They rightly feared the oppresion of the minority in the face of an emotional or tyrannical majority. The judiciary is insulated from majoritarian pressures as a way of protecting the individual from the majority. I think we are fortunate to live in such a system.

The judiciary (the Supreme Court especially) has the difficult task of limiting the power of government (be it democratic or not) by reference to the Constitution (a vague instrument). While you and I may agree that, at times, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and that its interpretation is tenuous, I think the benefits of an active and strong judiciary in protecting our freedoms outweighs the detriments arising from those relatively rare occasions when they can honestly be accused of "legislating from the bench."

The only success proffered in the non-hetero agenda is a legislation from the court in Massachusetts ORDERING the legislature to enact laws to abet their agenda ,(which last time I looked has been rejected by the public in clear majorities wherever the question has emerged). Courts have also whimmed us the following; teen killers are too dumb to be responsible for their actions, but pregnant teen girls are mature enough to have abortions without parental notification,( and increase their chances of contracting breast cancer by thiry per cent). I prefer the sometimes dogged and slow crawl of legislators whose give and take and compromise can bring us law whose time has come to the fore, ( and often without having to consult with the judiciary in Europe or Zimbabwe to do it). We cannot have a judiciary that has no limits to its scope. They now treat us as would teachers having fifth graders run a mock election. They literally ignore Constitutional legislation at their whim. If there is no strrict construct to the Constitutioinality or non of laws then we have to deal with the rule of kings. See above.