Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveZ
Happens all the time. The legislators don't write the bills. Sometimes their aides do, and quite often they receive draft bills from a host of sources (which the legislator's staff edit and then submit as the legislator's "work product"). So, quite often bills never get fully researched as to see which existing laws are affected. Legislators want the publicity associated with bills, and take no pride in authorship when the conflicts occur downstream.
|
I'm certainly not making a proposal here. But knowing that this is the way laws are made, why are the conservatives so deathly opposed to federal judges "making law from the bench"?
I know that the framers of the Constitution had specific intentions and expectations for the relationship between the Congress, the courts, and the President. But I doubt that they envisioned the significant influence of lobbyists, untrained Congressional aides, and members of Congress too busy to understand or even read the laws that they vote onto the books, or an executive unwilling to ruffle Congressional feathers by vetoing a faulted law. Maybe they also didn't envision a Congress so busy "doing other things" that they don't take the time to go back and correct faulty legislation after it's discovered.
That being the case, why
shouldn't the federal courts serve as "editor" of faulty laws produced by the other branches of government?
Just kind of a discussion question.