The US supreame court actualy decides the domestic rule of the US, not the presedent or any elected body, this being the case , in order for the type of laws and government we have over us directly to be for the people , of the people , and by the people , should we not elect those who will represent our voice over our own rule?
-
No; the Congress of the people make the laws.60% Voted for by GaryCGibson, Auxiliar, bob2314.
A Supreame Court needs to be somewhat removed from the immediate currents of popular opinion fashions, in order not to be a sycophant for lynch mobs or a pawn of executive power.
-
makes them kingVoted for by Dwn.
That pretty much removes them from being responcible to the wishes of the people and essentialy makes them the dictators of a supposed free Nation
-
founding fathersVoted for by lilsocy.
the founding fathers had little faith in the general population's ablity to govern the country at the time the constitution was written. they wanted the well educated, not the masses, to make the important decisions. the supreme court consisting of appointed and not elected persons was made that way for a reason. either appointed or elected....both ways have flaws. we only need to look at bush to see why appointing someone to the supreme court for life may be a bad idea (cause he's an ass and shouldn't be appointing anything). however we can look to the number of people who vote, as well as their age, sex, religion, ect. to see that those voters are not a good representaion of our countries population.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Energizer Bunny
September 9, 2006
Edit | Reply
GaryCGibson
September 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
Seperation of Powers and Illicit Influence
A judiciary is supposed to have open records of course, and to make honest an cosntitutionally accurate decisions and in that effort should be somewhat apart from current popular opinion, lest one get something like the Dredd Scott decision dumped often to assuage the more influemntial members of society. *** The three part system of Government of the United States is conserved from lapsing into a corporatist dictatorship perhaps by the modest set back the court has from the pervasive influence of the broadcast media upon the masses, or from the lobbying of congresspersons that might like to have legal decisions made on an other than constitutional basis. If some congressment and private citiens could influence the courts to make laws based on what they immediately want instead of what the constitution says is legal American courts would be as corrupt as those of many other nations of the world today. *** I think American justice may go the way of the Buffalo to in time. Imagine Nazi Germany's courts coopting the prior more balanced jurisprudence (if such existed). Maybe a Jew could get a half-fair shake in a court before world war one (I really don't know). After the end of the Weimar Republic that would not have been possible. A fair deal would have been defined as a free train ride to Berkinow-Auschwitz. There is value in keeping the courts on a constitutional basis, and if having congress make the laws, but in having the court decide if they are constitutional not in contradiction. Chief Justice Roberts, a shareholder of many corporations, is a bit friendly toward corporatist advances one might surmise.Dwn
September 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
The court
the court seems to pretty much make thier own interpretations of the constition based on what they want it to say rather than what it says, one example is the right to bear arms, which was intinded to make sure the Amrecan populas was armed well enough to overthrow the government should it become oppressive,The right to not be forced to contract, which was designed to keep companies like insurence agencies from haveing there profits legislated, the tight to councle, which was designed to keep courts from finding excuses not to allow people to have atourney,the right to trial by jurry, which was designed to keep judges from denying jurry trials,the right to not incriminate yourself without consiquince, which was designed to allow people legal representation under interegation, whether it is verble ,electronic or any other means,the right to travel,reguardless iff the highways and roads have been denied to pedestrian traffic.the list of missuses by this System goes on and on, all in the guise of law and order , while infact it is in the interest of making moneyPlease register or login to comment! It's totally free