Wrongo, Sandy Baby: Independence is not omnipotence

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Bonnie, May 19, 2006.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    http://americandaily.com/article/13623


     
  2. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    This is exactly how the liberal socialist elites plan to to expedite their policies...by sneaking through the back door using just a few "independent" judges who think they have no accountability to us, the voters.

    We need more Congressmen like Tom DeLay who are willing to impeach justices on the Supreme Court....forget O'Connor as she's already history....let's start with the Court Communist,
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg! :death:
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    What a smart man Hamilton was huh?
     
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I hate this dishonest form of argument. O'Connor meant what she meant. For some commentator to come along and interpret her words to mean something else is just intellectual dishonesty.

    Anyway the whole argument about judicial independence and so-called judicial activism is built on sand. The very point about the separation of powers is that it underpins the concept of a liberal democracy. People who rant about judicial activism usually are moaning about a decision they don't like. If an executive controls a judiciary then there is no liberal democracy. If you want a judiciary under the control of politicians then fine, go for it. You won't like it though.
     
  5. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    But the Judiciary usurping democratically elected representatives makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

    As for your comment that O'Connor "meant what she meant", whether you agree with it or not, the author's interpetation is logical. Are you somehow more qualified to interpret what O'Connor meant than the author?
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    It isn't the place of Congress or the Executive to construe the Constitution. Doing that would destroy the Constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority. The executive administers, the legislature passes laws, the Courts make sure those laws comply with the Constitution.

    And wondering when Sandra Day O'Connor became a "liberal jurist".... I suspect she'd be quite surprised to hear that.

    And the thought of "impeaching" justices for their decisions..... *shiver*
     
  7. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I don't see it as usurping anyone. The touchstone for any judiciary is the law. The law is made by the legislature. The legislature is bound by the constitution as to what it can make law on. The judiciary is also bound by the constitution and also by its own precedents. If a legislature tries to make a law that is out of whack with the constitution then it's the judiciary that has to rein them in and point to the constitution. That's just team play in my book, everyone doing their job.

    On the author's interpretation question. My qualifications or lack of them are irrelevant. The author's logic is faulty. When someone writes what she really means my bullshit detector goes to red. Since the author is not interrrogating O'Connor about "what she really means" and I believe the mind-reading is not yet possible, it must be that the author is merely re-interpreting O'Connor's remarks in a way suited to the author. That's intellectually dishonest. O'Connor did not claim "independence from checks and balances, independence from the written law, and independence from virtually any form of accountability." A responsible journalist would have either put that to O'Connor and recorded a response or would find evidence which points to O'Connor wanting what is claimed.
     
  8. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    If they were behaving as in the bolded sentence, we would have no disagreement. The problem is they are not. The most intellectually dishonest claim of the last 3 decades, is that the Courts are not making agenda-based decisions, and then backing into them via tortured Constitutional interpretations.

    The writer may or may not be pushing an agenda, you do not know, but he did not pull a rabbit out of his hat. His points were logical, and buttressed by O'Connor's own voting record. Who's to say but you are being intellectually dishonest, and basing your opinions of the article on a pro-judicial activist agenda of your own?

    Sorry, D, but the fact that your personal BS detector goes off is not a very compelling argument against the author or his opinions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Personally, I think someone's BS detector should go off when someone who's trained to be an exterminator, like Tom Delay, thinks he knows more about the Constitution than Sandra Day O'Connor.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Another voice, lots of links, (mostly legal writings, but quite interesting):

    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_05_14-2006_05_20.shtml#1148132557


     

Share This Page