tothesource

Responses to: We the People

Unfortunately, the inability of the American people to agree on a consensus on what is right and what is wrong, has been reflected in the makeup of its legislative branch. The fragmentation of Congress has made it virtually impossible for Congress to effectively govern. Thus, the judiciary has stepped in. A return by the American people to a Judeo-Christian consensus would allow Congress to eventually make law based on that consensus. If and when this happens, the judiciary would have no need, nor any ability, to usurp legislative powers. - B. S.

The provision in the constitution for reviewing the court's juridiction by the legislature is akin to a review board of referees. If a given referee is wrong enough times he/she will be reprimanded and eventually disqualified. Similarly while we agree that the courts must in general be respected, the more important issue is that the courts are limited in their jurisdiction and must be reviewed when they overstep their boundaries. Any referee can be reviewed and overturned if a wrong decision or a series of wrong decisions are made. Abortion, euthanasia and even the role of the federal government in states rights issues are reviewable and the legislature should accept their review responsibilities. The President is called upon to instigate review and sign legislation that is believed to be proper by the person who occupies that office. - J. S.

All this talk about the courts usurping power is simply political propaganda from those who do not like one or more recent court decisions. Nothing has changed about the power of the courts from the day our constitution was adopted. They have always had the same power: to be the referees. When they make a decision that the majority of the people or politicians don't like, it is because they are protecting the rights of the minority. I think the real problem is that the conservatives have not awakened to the fact that they are no longer in the minority. They are now the majority. They control the executive and legislative branches of the national government and they have appointed most of the judges in the Federal courts. The judges who turned down the Terri Schiavo appeals are mostly Republican appointees, including the darlings of the Right. When you run your nose up against a court decision you don't like, it is because you were about to poke your nose into someone's rights. That is the way our constitution works! When efforts are made to change that fact, if they are successful, they will destroy our rights. I disagree with abortion. I think it is a sin. But, precisely where to draw the line is ultimately based on religious beliefs. One major religion says that even birth control is morally the same as abortion. The court has said that once the baby is well developed then laws can be passed against abortion, but there is a questionable period in early pregnancy where no line can be drawn unless it is done by religion. Which religion should force its line on all Americans? I hope that medical research will soon clarify this who question so that we can get out of the current religious morass, but in the mean time, if one religion (or a coalition of religions) is allowed to force its definition of where to draw the line onto all Americans through the power of the government ... Is that the kind of America that can honestly be called a free country? - M. S.

I would not have given even 3 stars to this article, it was extremely biased and poorly researched - If it were possible to give negative number ratings, this article would deserve such a rating. - C. B.

Your line of reasoning concerning the power of the courts reminds me of the old debate over "experimental education." Conservatives would whine about how wrong it is to engage in "experimental education," because really you are "experimenting with our precious children." Better to stick to "traditional education," meaning the same education that they received as children. But the flaw in such reasoning ought to be obvious to any educated person: to give today's children the education yesterday's education is just as much an experiment as any new pedagogy. It is an experiment to see if yesterday's methods and materials will prepare children for tomorrow's world. So at the end of the day it really boils down to a question of whether it's your ox that is being gored or mine. The same with the courts. You can whine all you want about activist judges, but all judges are activists. You just don't like the action they are taking. - B. H.

I can't understand what you're complaining about--my only big problem is that the Supreme Court "elected" George Bush, our worst president EVER. Otherwise, most of the courts are acting reasonably; I'm just worried that Bush will now pack the Supreme Court with right-wing extremists who will destroy this company and all our liberties along with it. - A.