|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 13, 2010 15:54:15 GMT -8
Please notice the important correction in the first paragraph.Notice the most important fact mentioned in this article. Justices never move TO THE RIGHT after taking their place on the Court. (One quibble; I thought Black moved to the right over time, or am I thinking of another justice from his era? Where is NonPostePete when we need him?) ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/how-republican-justices-evolve.phpAzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Apr 25, 2010 6:58:41 GMT -8
With Scalia on the Supreme Court, even that Ratinger fella looks liberal. I have seen justices move left on the court, Earl Warren, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 25, 2010 10:04:28 GMT -8
Well, if you are going to miss type in a post, you might as well do a good job of it!  As I corrected in my first post in this thread, I should have said, that justices DO NOT MOVE TO THE RIGHT!Big difference. And I will repeat one important fact. It is the job of the Congress to change laws, not the Court. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 25, 2010 15:33:14 GMT -8
You had me confused William.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 26, 2010 8:36:29 GMT -8
And I will repeat one important fact. It is the job of the Congress to change laws, not the Court. AzWm Congress writes the laws and the SCOTUS rules on them. I believe that they can rule part of a law unconstitutional while leaving another part alone. They can also 'change a law' by suggesting what modifications would make that law OK. An example of that just happened with the court's animal cruelty ruling. Roberts told congress what they needed to do so that the law would address the primary issue, stomping videos. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 29, 2010 10:05:33 GMT -8
And I will repeat one important fact. It is the job of the Congress to change laws, not the Court. AzWm Congress writes the laws and the SCOTUS rules on them. I believe that they can rule part of a law unconstitutional while leaving another part alone. They can also 'change a law' by suggesting what modifications would make that law OK. An example of that just happened with the court's animal cruelty ruling. Roberts told congress what they needed to do so that the law would address the primary issue, stomping videos. I'm no lawyer, but your analysis seems right to me. What I, and others, object to is the "discovery" of rights in the Constitution which are not explicitly mentioned in that document. The penumbra justification is a technique that has been used to that end. When you start to reason that a state law is unconstitutional because of inferences rather than the exact language of the Constitution you are opening the door for all sorts of manipulations which really should be left to the legislative branch. (The following, which is form answers.com, discusses this issues. . . Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.
Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.
See: Griswold v. Connecticut; Judicial Review; Jurisprudence. Here's my position; while I agree that one should be free to disseminate information about contraception, such freedom should be explicitly protected either by law or by amendment to the Constitution. In the case of Griswold, the issue, according to the SCOTUS, is one of a right to privacy. No such right is even hinted at in the U.S. Constitution. I do not want nine justices of the SCOTUS to "discover" right after right through their own intuition. Every time that happens, the value of the Constitution is cheapened. Some my disagree. Well, what new "rights" might the Court discover? Maybe the "right" of a child to not obey his or her parents? How about a "right" to be provided, by the federal government, with a place to live and a job? How abut a "right" to public transporation, including door-to-door taxi service for those who cannot afford a car and do not live near a bus or trolley line? And who knows what else? The beauty of the Constitution is (A) that is it concise, and (B) that a means, the amendment process, was provided whereby needed changes to the document could be made through deliberation and careful thought by persons subject to the will (via elections) of the people. I still believe in the Just call the balls and strikes, don't give the team you feel sorry for a fourth strike theory of jurisprudence. AzWm |
|
As I corrected in my first post in this thread, I should have said, that justices DO NOT MOVE TO THE RIGHT!
