[williamlayton]

we live and exist in a democracy. we elect legislators, senate and house combined in the statement as well as the president, but there is a group, not elected, which i feel realistically create laws.
this group is the judicial system.
this group, as originally organized, was to protect the individual from being falsely/harshly raked over the coals.
i will get on the soapbox briefly, at this point. it is a subject to be walked on lightly. the constitution, this government, is a very liberal form of government. this nation, as founded, is a very liberal thought.
our form of government is by the people. we are the people that govern ourownselves. REMEMBER the pendulum theory here. the people come from a varied background, varied cultures. by culture i would remind readers tha i am not talkin about race in any form here. culture is different from maine to viginia, to california. heck fire, it is different from town to town.
i digress, it seems to me that our judicial sytem is NOT too liberal. i believe it is too very concervative in its intrepretation of the law. a more liberal intrepretation should allow more individual rights.
remember here, to have freedom one must grant freedom.
soapbox is clear.
blessings

 

[Mus]

Liberal and conservative are meaningless in this context, nor has it been conservatism on the part of the judges or following traditional thought that has led us to this level of degeneration. I do agree with you that the judicial system is out of control. Thomas Jefferson predicted there would be problems with the judiciary after it proved impossible to impeach justices after they usurped their lawful authority and conjured the power to write law from the bench in Marbury vs Madison.

 

[bigjim]

The shift key located on your keyboard allows you to use capitalization at the beginning of your sentences. This makes it possible to read your posts.

We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative republic. Lately it is becomeing more of a republik.

We do not govern ourselves, we elect people to govern us with our consent.

I was not able to extract much else from your post.

 

[williamlayton]

thanx for the tip bigjim. did not realize this made it more difficuly to read.
blessings

 

[Mus]

It's amusing to read on this forum threads railing against politicians that some feel don't represent the will of the people, and then read other threads railing against non-elected "oligarch" judges imposing their will on people they don't represent.

Whats amusing about it? Both are certainly happening and neither one is very good for the country. I dont see any inconsistency in "railing" against both.

BTW the title "oligarch" certainly fits any Supreme Court Justice. Under the way its currently set up the Supreme Court - as the supreme law of the land - could decide by simple majority that any law means anything they wish.

Which usually means that the authors of those threads just don't like the subject ruling, regardless of whether it was in accordance with the law.

Thats an interesting charge coming from somone who applauded a recent SCOTUS decision where they ignored decades of their own precedent and cited foreign law as its basis.

But thats really besides the point. The problem is as stated above, if you accept the way the court currently works, its impossible for the Supreme Court to NOT be in accordance with the law. They are writing it from the bench and can make it say or mean whatever they wish.

Jefferson said it best:

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[williamlayton]

thanx dh-
i'll try to do better next time roud.
blessings

 

[Mus]

I knew Mus wouldn't resist that bait.

Nope. Couldnt do it.

 

[williamlayton]

Personally i think his thinking is good. I been lookin round an the only concern/thought I had was about answers not being well thought out. Thought out to the point so as an answer got the thought across with enough clarity that is understood. Flaming does not accomplish much, almost nothing to the one being raved at.
Look fellers, it is an apsolute impossibility for everybody to agree to a point on anything.
I have my way of thinking, and ya'll have yours. If you were to tell me that you thought I was stupid it would not bother me. First of all I know my limitations far better than anyone. I will not cross the boundries of those limitations.
Anywho, I enjoy reading your thoughts. Most of em are pretty good. A lot i do not agree with-but thats alright too. After it's all said an done ya might be right an i might be wrong.
blessings