New article by George Will entitled "Of Judges, By Judges, For Judges." The article discusses the problems generated for individuals, families and society when judges are creating law instead of enforcing law.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I get the semantic argument George Will is talking about, but how fair was it when the US government came in and told the Mormons that they could no longer practice polygamy? They broke up existing families because polygamy didn't match their definition of what marriage should be. Polygamy is a decision made between consenting adults. The rights of those minorities (In this case the people who practiced polygamy) were trampled on by the majority. They had no chance and it was unfair and it is still unfair. My point is that the minority's rights should not be decided by the majority's whims and irrational fears, especially when it is none of the majority's business or concern. People need to mind their own business when it is none of their business. Current polygamist families should be allowed to come out of the shadows and gay people who want to be married to each other should be able to enjoy the bliss the rest of us enjoy.
I understand that you do not agree with the outcome, there is really no need to debate our personal views here.
However, it is the process that is important. Sometimes you will agree with the majority, sometimes you won't. The question is, how do you decide when to let the majority make law, and when they are overruled?
In my mind, the answer is the Constitution, either the National or State. If the majority makes a new law that is a clear violation of law, then the Judiciary should overturn the law.
When there is no clear violation of settled law, and the Judiciary has to pull a decision out of thin air to go along with thier personal or political preference, then the will of the people should not be tampered with.
There are ways to change the constitution, and there are ways to change state laws, if the people will it. So far, in CA, the people don't.
I also second Will's comment about abortion. The people's will was changing on the subject. If the Court would have stayed out of it for a few more years, Roe v. Wade would have been the voice of the people, and not some Judicial Fiat declared by five of nine.
I do understand the process is important. But, maybe we need a better process.. as sometimes the people need a kick in the pants.
I believe it can all be simplified to, does this persons actions affect my life, liberty or property? If the answer is no, then the majority needs to mind their own business.
3 comments:
I get the semantic argument George Will is talking about, but how fair was it when the US government came in and told the Mormons that they could no longer practice polygamy? They broke up existing families because polygamy didn't match their definition of what marriage should be. Polygamy is a decision made between consenting adults. The rights of those minorities (In this case the people who practiced polygamy) were trampled on by the majority. They had no chance and it was unfair and it is still unfair.
My point is that the minority's rights should not be decided by the majority's whims and irrational fears, especially when it is none of the majority's business or concern.
People need to mind their own business when it is none of their business. Current polygamist families should be allowed to come out of the shadows and gay people who want to be married to each other should be able to enjoy the bliss the rest of us enjoy.
I understand that you do not agree with the outcome, there is really no need to debate our personal views here.
However, it is the process that is important. Sometimes you will agree with the majority, sometimes you won't. The question is, how do you decide when to let the majority make law, and when they are overruled?
In my mind, the answer is the Constitution, either the National or State. If the majority makes a new law that is a clear violation of law, then the Judiciary should overturn the law.
When there is no clear violation of settled law, and the Judiciary has to pull a decision out of thin air to go along with thier personal or political preference, then the will of the people should not be tampered with.
There are ways to change the constitution, and there are ways to change state laws, if the people will it. So far, in CA, the people don't.
I also second Will's comment about abortion. The people's will was changing on the subject. If the Court would have stayed out of it for a few more years, Roe v. Wade would have been the voice of the people, and not some Judicial Fiat declared by five of nine.
Yo Len,
I do understand the process is important. But, maybe we need a better process.. as sometimes the people need a kick in the pants.
I believe it can all be simplified to, does this persons actions affect my life, liberty or property? If the answer is no, then the majority needs to mind their own business.
Post a Comment