[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is bad news. I think the USSC made the correct rulings on the examples you listed but the votes were clearly along partisan lines.
It is a political body. They are political appointees. I suppose it is naive to believe they would regularly behave otherwise.
That is why checks and balances are important and I oppose judicial activism.
I have not done a interpretation and serious read trough on the abortion case, but in the Florida case, the law behind the decision is… faulty, and I believe that the outcome would be different if the parties had been in the opposite position, which is the very definition of partisan politics, and that again is the very problem that arises.
One can agree or disagree with the desicions the court make, but they should and they have to based on legal principles, not on political lines.
First off, yes, I agree that the USSC is getting far too political, and I strongly dislike how the Constitution is getting twisted to mean whatever the hell anyone want it to mean nowadays. It is NOT a ‘living document’. It means exactly what it says, not what you want it to mean.
Forgive me for my mini rant there, but I bolded your quote for a reason. Correct if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Gore v. Bush case follow something like this:
Election was held, Gore loses
Gore: RECOUNT!
Votes recounted, Gore loses again
Gore: RECOUNT AGAIN!
Votes recounted, Gore loses a third time
Gore: RECOUNT AGAIN!
Bush: Hey, wait a minute…
Votes recounted, Gore loses a fourth time
Gore: RECOUNT AGAIN!
Bush: How many times are we going to recount?
Votes recounted, Gore loses a fifth time
Gore: RECOUNT AGAIN!
USSC: STFU!!
Bush wins
Now, it does not seem to me that Bush “stole” any election by way of the USSC. It seems more to me like Gore was going to keep counting until he came out on top, and make a mockery of the voting process. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
I saw nothing wrong with what the USSC did in 2001.[/quote]
Read the book “supreme injustice” it sheds light on why the judgement is wrong legally far better than I can.