Shorter Jean Edward Smith
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Law — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You certainly have to give her points for constructing an ideology of convenience. Oh, and it's not the job of the Judicial Branch to take into account "popular values." Its job is to interpret and apply the law. Taking into account "popular values" is the job of elected officials. I look forward to the day when this statement does not have to be repeated constantly.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Bravo For The FCC — Comments (4) »
Shorter Jean Edward Smith 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Popular values" are not the same in flyover country as, say coastal California or Vermont. So, who gives SCOTUS the right to rule on the popular values in my area. They are in DC. Heck, I don't even want to continue to be part of the ninth circus. Perhaps each state should have it's own "court of popular values" to rule on stuff in their state.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But come on, now.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"It requires just a simple majority of Congress to add a seat or two" ???
I repeat: ???
So, then, were the Democrats doing something unconstitutional when they filibustered dozens of judicial appointments from 2001 to 2006?
Can anything other than a budget pass Congress with only a simple majority?
Maybe she should, like, check out a newspaper once in a while and read it. NY Times would be fine. Any paper.
Romney/Thompson 2008
Well,hell....is there ANYBODY here who doesn't see and understand that when the NYT says 'popular values' it means values as defined by them and their little coterie of liberal opinion makers and ideological cohorts?...talk about a loaded catch phrase....sure as hell they don't mean MY values
And then the Republicans can add two more when they get back in power... and then the Democrats can add two more, etc.
Personally, I think we would be fine with less not more; it would cut down on the endless plurality opinions where no can tell what the law is.
Sounds like Jean Edward Smith needs to take my very basic course on American Government. I spend a lot of time explaining the rols of the 3 branches of government.
Now there's a hanging curve.
Deciding cases on popular values presupposes, inter alia, some standard for how popular a value has to be before the Court acts upon it.
So suppose we decide first which pollster SCOTUS should use, or if they should roll, as it were, their own. Maybe they could just use a web poll on their blog. Have an intern do it.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.