Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
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.
|
Simply because then the "We, the People" are taken out of the law-making business when judges can autocratically amend-via-decision any statute. When Judges "rule from the bench," personal bias replaces the will of the people and eliminates the need for and purpose of a legislature duly elected by the citizenry. "We, the People" are replaced by "We, the Few and Almighty." The last time that situation existed here, tea ended up floating in Boston Harbor.