|
GrandPoobah -> RE: Newt on the 9th Court. (2/15/2012 12:45:55 AM)
|
Tazzy, you're missing the point. In simple terms:
If I disagree with the decision, it's those darn "activist judges" at it again, legislating from the bench. If I agree, there's not problem. They're just doing their job.
The TRUE issue is that the courts are supposed to be politically blind, and actually they work that way the bulk of the time. Their decisions...with some notable exceptions...are most often based upon case law, precedents, and other traditional legal principles in western countries.
I certainly agree there are times when they have stretched the meaning of the Constitution beyond anything I can recognize, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong...only that we don't always agree. I think Citizens United is a terrible decision. It seems to me that the first amendment never meant that. However, Roe v Wade is based upon a similar "stretch" of the meaning of the first amendment, and I have no trouble with that, even if I'm not too certain the Constitution really addressed it.
In any case, I always start by looking at who's complaining, and then decide if they have a dog in the fight. If they do, I pretty much ignore their perspective. After all, Nixon lost 9-zip on the tapes case and still complained. It's hard to find another 9-zip decision anywhere.
GP
|
|
|
|
