TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: And anyway, just how is a court to determine the "consensus of the US as it applies to any concept?"

Most of them are very smart. :)

More serially, I must differ somewhat with Steve on this, only in that while perhaps on the right occasion this factor is quite legitimately taken into account by the Court, it certainly does not always play a role. To regurgitate Roberts, Alito and Scalia as settling the question, when they are among the most hypocritical liberals in using such a test, and then lie about it, does not help us any. Anyone who thihks the Court is not a political animal does not watch confirmation hearings very closely.

Elmo

Dave2 wrote:

srothstein wrote:Remember that the court is supposed to rule on what the consensus of the US feels as it applies to any concept.

The court is supposed to rule on what the law says. If anyone thinks the law ought to say something else, they are free to talk to their elected representatives about the matter.

Judges are usually lawyers because they're supposed to understand the law. Judges originally were also supposed to understand plain English, but some rulings show that's no longer a requirement.

If the Federal courts are supposed to mirror public opinion, we could save a lot of money on their six figure salaries and use http://www.surveymonkey.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; instead. However, it's clear the founders enumerated constitutional rights precisely to prevent those rights being violated as a result of popular opinion. They also showed us what to do with redcoats and other public officials who violate the rights of ordinary citizens, but We The People have forgot that lesson.

b322da wrote:

VMI77 wrote: And anyway, just how is a court to determine the "consensus of the US as it applies to any concept?"

Most of them are very smart. :)

More serially, I must differ somewhat with Steve on this, only in that while perhaps on the right occasion this factor is quite legitimately taken into account by the Court, it certainly does not always play a role. To regurgitate Roberts, Alito and Scalia as settling the question, when they are among the most hypocritical liberals in using such a test, and then lie about it, does not help us any. Anyone who thihks the Court is not a political animal does not watch confirmation hearings very closely.

Elmo

I was addressing a contention about what the courts are "supposed" to do not debating what they actually do. It's one thing to recognize that the courts are susceptible to political influence, it's quite another, and dangerous to any reasonable concept of liberty, to contend that's the way they're supposed to operate. I prefer a Constitutional Republic to a tyranny of a popular majority of the uninformed. We need to be aware of human flaws and limitations but we don't have to endorse and institutionalize them.

VMI77 wrote:I was addressing a contention about what the courts are "supposed" to do not debating what they actually do. It's one thing to recognize that the courts are susceptible to political influence, it's quite another, and dangerous to any reasonable concept of liberty, to contend that's the way they're supposed to operate. I prefer a Constitutional Republic to a tyranny of a popular majority of the uninformed. We need to be aware of human flaws and limitations but we don't have to endorse and institutionalize them.

People aren't supposed to rob banks. Some people do but that doesn't make it right.