Judges Have Too Much Power

[BobPlumb]

In a brand new case, the highly popular ban on same-sex marriage ( 75 percent of voters approved it in 2004 as an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution) went down to defeat, when ONE JUDGE, Judge Cris Piazza, overturned the ban law.

Actually not, the Constitution and its case law overturned the ban, having little to do with the judge.

In fact, judges have very little ‘power,’ as they’re compelled to abide by the Constitution. And when they err and fail to abide by that case law, their decisions are overturned by the appellate courts.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures such as Proposition 8 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.

When judges invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution, they do so as authorized by the Founding Document and its case law, thus safeguarding the civil liberties of all Americans.

FALSE! The judge made the decision, overruling the will of 2.2 million people + their elected representitives.

As for your idiotic statement >> "the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.",

EARTH TO CCJ: Deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties, is done EVERY DAY, in every state of the USA, by legislatures, and law enforcement agencies.
And those who (by majority rule) have been found to be outside of society's standards and rules (called laws), currently reside in big buildings called prisons.

Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate.

Do you beleive that judges in our judicial system should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws? It appears that you do not!

 

[protectionist]

Actually not, the Constitution and its case law overturned the ban, having little to do with the judge.

In fact, judges have very little ‘power,’ as they’re compelled to abide by the Constitution. And when they err and fail to abide by that case law, their decisions are overturned by the appellate courts.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures such as Proposition 8 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.

When judges invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution, they do so as authorized by the Founding Document and its case law, thus safeguarding the civil liberties of all Americans.

FALSE! The judge made the decision, overruling the will of 2.2 million people + their elected representitives.

As for your idiotic statement >> "the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.",

EARTH TO CCJ: Deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties, is done EVERY DAY, in every state of the USA, by legislatures, and law enforcement agencies.
And those who (by majority rule) have been found to be outside of society's standards and rules (called laws), currently reside in big buildings called prisons.

Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate.

Do you beleive that judges in our judicial system should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws? It appears that you do not!

I don't know how it would appear to you that I would not believe judges should rule on the constitutionality of laws. Of course they should, and they do. But some people only want them to rule in ways that they particularly like.

CCJ ranted to me about Article 6 of the Constitution, but I when I presented Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) to him, in a way that he didn't like, he dismissed it.

And what is or isn't "Constitutional" is often subjective. There are many ways people are deprived of rights. Arsonists are not allowed to commit arson. All rights are within the context of avoiding harm to the American people, but the definition of what constitutes harm can easily vary from person to person, and from judge to judge.
This is why some unscrupulous organizations (ex. La Raza, CAIR, etc) go "judge-shopping" before filing their complaints. Because they know the notion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional varies from one judge to another.

 

[BobPlumb]

FALSE! The judge made the decision, overruling the will of 2.2 million people + their elected representitives.

As for your idiotic statement >> "the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.",

EARTH TO CCJ: Deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties, is done EVERY DAY, in every state of the USA, by legislatures, and law enforcement agencies.
And those who (by majority rule) have been found to be outside of society's standards and rules (called laws), currently reside in big buildings called prisons.

Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate.

Do you beleive that judges in our judicial system should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws? It appears that you do not!

I don't know how it would appear to you that I would not believe judges should rule on the constitutionality of laws. Of course they should, and they do. But some people only want them to rule in ways that they particularly like.

CCJ ranted to me about Article 6 of the Constitution, but I when I presented Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) to him, in a way that he didn't like, he dismissed it.

And what is or isn't "Constitutional" is often subjective. There are many ways people are deprived of rights. Arsonists are not allowed to commit arson. All rights are within the context of avoiding harm to the American people, but the definition of what constitutes harm can easily vary from person to person, and from judge to judge.
This is why some unscrupulous organizations (ex. La Raza, CAIR, etc) go "judge-shopping" before filing their complaints. Because they know the notion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional varies from one judge to another.

It appeared to me that you may not beleive that judges should be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws based on the things you previously posted in this thread such as "Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate."

Judges through the power of ruling laws unconstitutional, have the power to overturn laws supported by the majority of people.

 

[protectionist]

Do you beleive that judges in our judicial system should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws? It appears that you do not!

I don't know how it would appear to you that I would not believe judges should rule on the constitutionality of laws. Of course they should, and they do. But some people only want them to rule in ways that they particularly like.

CCJ ranted to me about Article 6 of the Constitution, but I when I presented Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) to him, in a way that he didn't like, he dismissed it.

And what is or isn't "Constitutional" is often subjective. There are many ways people are deprived of rights. Arsonists are not allowed to commit arson. All rights are within the context of avoiding harm to the American people, but the definition of what constitutes harm can easily vary from person to person, and from judge to judge.
This is why some unscrupulous organizations (ex. La Raza, CAIR, etc) go "judge-shopping" before filing their complaints. Because they know the notion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional varies from one judge to another.

It appeared to me that you may not beleive that judges should be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws based on the things you previously posted in this thread such as "Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate."

Judges through the power of ruling laws unconstitutional, have the power to overturn laws supported by the majority of people.

That's too much power for a single person to wield. Any judge who doesn't like a law, can pretend to interpret it how that law wouldn't be proper, and then strike it down. Too much goes into the making of a law to allow ONE PERSON to do that. Does anyone think that the creators of the law didn't understand its constitutional standing before they enacted it ?

 

[BobPlumb]

I don't know how it would appear to you that I would not believe judges should rule on the constitutionality of laws. Of course they should, and they do. But some people only want them to rule in ways that they particularly like.

CCJ ranted to me about Article 6 of the Constitution, but I when I presented Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) to him, in a way that he didn't like, he dismissed it.

And what is or isn't "Constitutional" is often subjective. There are many ways people are deprived of rights. Arsonists are not allowed to commit arson. All rights are within the context of avoiding harm to the American people, but the definition of what constitutes harm can easily vary from person to person, and from judge to judge.
This is why some unscrupulous organizations (ex. La Raza, CAIR, etc) go "judge-shopping" before filing their complaints. Because they know the notion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional varies from one judge to another.

It appeared to me that you may not beleive that judges should be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws based on the things you previously posted in this thread such as "Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate."

Judges through the power of ruling laws unconstitutional, have the power to overturn laws supported by the majority of people.

That's too much power for a single person to wield. Any judge who doesn't like a law, can pretend to interpret it how that law wouldn't be proper, and then strike it down. Too much goes into the making of a law to allow ONE PERSON to do that. Does anyone think that the creators of the law didn't understand its constitutional standing before they enacted it ?

How many judges are enough? Our Supreme Court has nine. And often the decisions are by a 5-4 majority which makes the decision dependant on just one swing vote.

 

[protectionist]

It appeared to me that you may not beleive that judges should be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws based on the things you previously posted in this thread such as "Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate."

Judges through the power of ruling laws unconstitutional, have the power to overturn laws supported by the majority of people.

That's too much power for a single person to wield. Any judge who doesn't like a law, can pretend to interpret it how that law wouldn't be proper, and then strike it down. Too much goes into the making of a law to allow ONE PERSON to do that. Does anyone think that the creators of the law didn't understand its constitutional standing before they enacted it ?

How many judges are enough? Our Supreme Court has nine. And often the decisions are by a 5-4 majority which makes the decision dependant on just one swing vote.

Let's put it like this. The more judges you ruling on something, the less able the judge shoppers are to do what they do.