John McCain and Barack Obama, the two leading presidential candidates,
have set out sharply contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court
and the kind of justices they would appoint.
Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of
conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing
the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by
an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he
criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians
the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making
these decisions.
"
We absolutely shouldn't have "judicial activism" on the bench, however, we also can't be denying ordinary Americans the same rights that others enjoy. It's got to be an issue of "everyone or no one".
However, McCain IS right when we're talking about "judicial activism". You can't decide a lawsuit based upon feelings, you have to base it upon the law as it is written. That means that if someone gets screwed out of something, even if it's not right, then that's how it is. It sounds harsh, but if you don't rule according to the law, you're setting yourself up to be let down by the whims of a judge who may be in a bad mood that day, not like one side or another for any reason, or any other host of issues that might arise.
The Supreme Court has the final say on matters that effect everyone, and if you allow someone to rule according to feelings rather than law, you're going to have problems that no one can foresee.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
have set out sharply contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court
and the kind of justices they would appoint.
Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of
conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing
the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by
an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he
criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians
the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making
these decisions.
"
We absolutely shouldn't have "judicial activism" on the bench, however, we also can't be denying ordinary Americans the same rights that others enjoy. It's got to be an issue of "everyone or no one".
However, McCain IS right when we're talking about "judicial activism". You can't decide a lawsuit based upon feelings, you have to base it upon the law as it is written. That means that if someone gets screwed out of something, even if it's not right, then that's how it is. It sounds harsh, but if you don't rule according to the law, you're setting yourself up to be let down by the whims of a judge who may be in a bad mood that day, not like one side or another for any reason, or any other host of issues that might arise.
The Supreme Court has the final say on matters that effect everyone, and if you allow someone to rule according to feelings rather than law, you're going to have problems that no one can foresee.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment