Looks to me that along with 75% of Americans, even our gop appointed judges are laughing in the face of nutters.
realitybasedbob - 05:01pm on 01/10/2008
proving once again just how little control our legislative and executive branches actually have over the judicial branch.
I dunno Rob. I dislike judicial activism as much as you do, but that statement sounds like you want the 3rd branch to be subservient to one of the other 2, or both. My understanding of the judicial branch is that it was intended to be a slightly more than equal member of the 3 branch system in order to keep some degree of sanity amongst the other 2. Maybe I misunderstood your point?
Spartacus - 05:01pm on 01/10/2008
I would like to add that this “affront to the American ideals of free speech” was enabled by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act—promogulated by… McCain.
Hairy Polemic - 06:01pm on 01/10/2008
Maybe I misunderstood your point?
Well, we’re often told that a check on judicial power is the fact that judges are nominated and approved by the two other branches of our government. Yet clearly, given how many judges diverge from the judicial philosophy of those that appoint them, this isn’t much of a check at all.
I’m all for an independent judiciary, but not a dominant one. Right now, the judges are pretty much writing our laws for us.
I would like to add that this “affront to the American ideals of free speech” was enabled by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act—promogulated by… McCain.
And voted for by Thompson. Which he’s apologized for, but even as an ardent Thompson supporter I’ll admit that it’s one of the things that has always bugged me about him.
Rob - 07:01pm on 01/10/2008
If the Anti-Hillary flic is ‘advertising’, then Michael Moore [Farenheit 911, Sicko] is the biggest Madison Avenue ad-man of them all! Do we detect a double standard here? Its ok to mock the President, but not a candidate?
pparets - 07:01pm on 01/10/2008
this isn’t much of a check at all.
I agree with that statement, however, when a judge misinterprets the intent of the law shouldn’t the legislative and/or executive branch take steps to clarify intent?… I know, in our lifetime we’ve had more possibilities of seeing pigs with wings…
Spartacus - 07:01pm on 01/10/2008
Judges shouldn’t have this kind of power. This is a perversion of the office.
likwidshoe - 07:01pm on 01/10/2008
Personally, I’m going to advertise for whomever I want and no judge is going to tell me otherwise. If he thinks that he can tell me what political speech that I can and cannot say, then he is barking up the wrong tree. Judges don’t have that kind of power. This is America.
Put any partisanship aside. This is a fundamental attack on free speech. There should be no disagreements.
likwidshoe - 08:01pm on 01/10/2008
Judges don’t have that kind of power. This is America.
Read the Constitution lately?
The legislative check on the judicial branch is not the appointment of judges—that’s the executive check. The legislative check is Congress’ ability to pass a more specific, less easily interpreted law.
Justice Scalia is famous for avoiding legislative intent in order to coax the legislature to take more responsibility for their law making and not pass vague, easily “misinterpreted” laws.
So no. You shouldn’t fault the Judge for this ruling, fault the legislature for passing a law so open to interpretation.
Hairy Polemic - 09:01pm on 01/10/2008
The legislative check on the judicial branch is not the appointment of judges—that’s the executive check. The legislative check is Congress’ ability to pass a more specific, less easily interpreted law.
You’re half right. Remember that the executive’s ability to appoint judges hinges on Congress’ approval of them.
It’s a joint effort, and one that’s not much of a check at all which was the point I originally made.
I agree with that statement, however, when a judge misinterprets the intent of the law shouldn’t the legislative and/or executive branch take steps to clarify intent?
Yes, they should.
As an interesting side note, if this anti-Hillary flick is advertising then wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to all those anti-conservative and anti-Republican jabs in movies and television?
Looks to me that along with 75% of Americans, even our gop appointed judges are laughing in the face of nutters.
I dunno Rob. I dislike judicial activism as much as you do, but that statement sounds like you want the 3rd branch to be subservient to one of the other 2, or both. My understanding of the judicial branch is that it was intended to be a slightly more than equal member of the 3 branch system in order to keep some degree of sanity amongst the other 2. Maybe I misunderstood your point?
I would like to add that this “affront to the American ideals of free speech” was enabled by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act—promogulated by… McCain.
Well, we’re often told that a check on judicial power is the fact that judges are nominated and approved by the two other branches of our government. Yet clearly, given how many judges diverge from the judicial philosophy of those that appoint them, this isn’t much of a check at all.
I’m all for an independent judiciary, but not a dominant one. Right now, the judges are pretty much writing our laws for us.
And voted for by Thompson. Which he’s apologized for, but even as an ardent Thompson supporter I’ll admit that it’s one of the things that has always bugged me about him.
If the Anti-Hillary flic is ‘advertising’, then Michael Moore [Farenheit 911, Sicko] is the biggest Madison Avenue ad-man of them all! Do we detect a double standard here? Its ok to mock the President, but not a candidate?
I agree with that statement, however, when a judge misinterprets the intent of the law shouldn’t the legislative and/or executive branch take steps to clarify intent?… I know, in our lifetime we’ve had more possibilities of seeing pigs with wings…
Judges shouldn’t have this kind of power. This is a perversion of the office.
Personally, I’m going to advertise for whomever I want and no judge is going to tell me otherwise. If he thinks that he can tell me what political speech that I can and cannot say, then he is barking up the wrong tree. Judges don’t have that kind of power. This is America.
Put any partisanship aside. This is a fundamental attack on free speech. There should be no disagreements.
Read the Constitution lately?
The legislative check on the judicial branch is not the appointment of judges—that’s the executive check. The legislative check is Congress’ ability to pass a more specific, less easily interpreted law.
Justice Scalia is famous for avoiding legislative intent in order to coax the legislature to take more responsibility for their law making and not pass vague, easily “misinterpreted” laws.
So no. You shouldn’t fault the Judge for this ruling, fault the legislature for passing a law so open to interpretation.
You’re half right. Remember that the executive’s ability to appoint judges hinges on Congress’ approval of them.
It’s a joint effort, and one that’s not much of a check at all which was the point I originally made.
Yes, they should.
As an interesting side note, if this anti-Hillary flick is advertising then wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to all those anti-conservative and anti-Republican jabs in movies and television?
Not that this should apply at all, but still…