In Response . . .
This is in response to the anonymous poster. First of all, think you kindly for leaving a comment and I wish you had signed a name so I know who you are, because even though we will inevitably agreeing to disagree I would still like to talk about the issues. Since I don't know who you are (or if you will ever read here again), this seeems to be the best place to respond. If anyone else reading cares, here is what I am responding to: http://northofreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/be-political-pundit_13.html#comments
First of all I probably don't need to retake a government course since I am cetified to teach said course on the secondary level, so I am well aware of the necessity of checks and balances. However, the supreme court still has to much power. If you search the constitution you will find absolutly nothing about judicial review. The Supreme Court technically does not have the power to overturn laws. The court did successfully establish this power in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison and completly upset the checks and balances. There are the no checks on the supreme court whatever the majority of nine people says becomes the law and the only thing that can change it is a consitutional ammedment. If that is not to much power for nine people, then I would like to know what is. This is further agumented by the problem that the supreme court has zero accountability. The legislative branch and the Executive branch are subject to the people, but the supreme court justices can only be ousted by impeachement. While, I don't think justices should run for office, they still need some sort of accountibility. To illustrate the point of the Supreme Court's (over)power, if one of the liberal leaning judges were to die tonight and a Bush appointed judge would take their place, then woe v. wade would be overturned. The domestic policy for over 20 years and legal precedent can all be changed by one person. Once again, how is that not having to much power?
In response to the second point, I never said I wanted a theocracy. However, I do believe there is such a thing as Truth and I believe that this absolute truth should act as a moral compass. Yes, I realized that this makes me a "close minded" and possibly "religious fanatic" but telling me that I a wrong and that I should not allow my personal conviction to influence my political decisions is just as or more close minded. And I agree with you, I think the legal process should decide the issue of same sex marriage, not the arbitriary power of the Supreme Court. I do think that states should have the right to decide. However, if any of the multiple referendums on the ballots this election do pass, then it will eventually end up as a case in the supreme court. Which if we go back to my original post was my whole thing to begin with.
Finally, for everyone else reading this I still would love to here your opinions as to who I should vote for in the upcoming election, and if you think I am wrong about any of the above, tell me that too.
First of all I probably don't need to retake a government course since I am cetified to teach said course on the secondary level, so I am well aware of the necessity of checks and balances. However, the supreme court still has to much power. If you search the constitution you will find absolutly nothing about judicial review. The Supreme Court technically does not have the power to overturn laws. The court did successfully establish this power in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison and completly upset the checks and balances. There are the no checks on the supreme court whatever the majority of nine people says becomes the law and the only thing that can change it is a consitutional ammedment. If that is not to much power for nine people, then I would like to know what is. This is further agumented by the problem that the supreme court has zero accountability. The legislative branch and the Executive branch are subject to the people, but the supreme court justices can only be ousted by impeachement. While, I don't think justices should run for office, they still need some sort of accountibility. To illustrate the point of the Supreme Court's (over)power, if one of the liberal leaning judges were to die tonight and a Bush appointed judge would take their place, then woe v. wade would be overturned. The domestic policy for over 20 years and legal precedent can all be changed by one person. Once again, how is that not having to much power?
In response to the second point, I never said I wanted a theocracy. However, I do believe there is such a thing as Truth and I believe that this absolute truth should act as a moral compass. Yes, I realized that this makes me a "close minded" and possibly "religious fanatic" but telling me that I a wrong and that I should not allow my personal conviction to influence my political decisions is just as or more close minded. And I agree with you, I think the legal process should decide the issue of same sex marriage, not the arbitriary power of the Supreme Court. I do think that states should have the right to decide. However, if any of the multiple referendums on the ballots this election do pass, then it will eventually end up as a case in the supreme court. Which if we go back to my original post was my whole thing to begin with.
Finally, for everyone else reading this I still would love to here your opinions as to who I should vote for in the upcoming election, and if you think I am wrong about any of the above, tell me that too.
posted by SeanXor at 8:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home