repoman
Contributor
This guy is a hard lefty for the most part.
The double edged sword SC power giving protection for vulnerable people may soon turn into fascist enabling.
This passive waiting for the SC is also enervating real activism.
-
Features
Can we reel the Supreme Court's judicial review back into its imaginary box?
- Thread starter repoman
- Start date
This guy is a hard lefty for the most part.
The double edged sword SC power giving protection for vulnerable people may soon turn into fascist enabling.
This passive waiting for the SC is also enervating real activism.
I can't currently stream video, what's his point?
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Under the common law system, we have 'judge made laws.' The advantage was that the courts and not the government instruct the courts by way of cases created precedents which dictated future cases. In such instances Roe vs Wade was a precedent passed by the courts.
However in recent years more of our laws (at least in the UK) have been passed as legislation. Such legislation has taken into account examples in case law. There is a view by many legal bodies that where governments dictate laws directly to the courts leads to corruption, for it is a corruption.
The courts therefore should be free to determine the laws with support from the government. Also governments should not be appointing judges to the Supreme court but rather leave this to the Law society(s) to recommend a list of appointees. In such circumstances (as in the UK) the government can only reject such appointees in writing to present a good reason. This would reduce collusion between government and the courts.
Supreme Court may (per the video) make judgment and rulings per its interpretation except as dictated by Congress.
It's almost a suggestion but not quite, that the US should look for a separation between law and state from the viewpoint of dictatorial measures.
However in recent years more of our laws (at least in the UK) have been passed as legislation. Such legislation has taken into account examples in case law. There is a view by many legal bodies that where governments dictate laws directly to the courts leads to corruption, for it is a corruption.
The courts therefore should be free to determine the laws with support from the government. Also governments should not be appointing judges to the Supreme court but rather leave this to the Law society(s) to recommend a list of appointees. In such circumstances (as in the UK) the government can only reject such appointees in writing to present a good reason. This would reduce collusion between government and the courts.
Supreme Court may (per the video) make judgment and rulings per its interpretation except as dictated by Congress.
It's almost a suggestion but not quite, that the US should look for a separation between law and state from the viewpoint of dictatorial measures.