In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:25:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Suffice to say, it > was not intended for the judiciary to be writing the law as if it had the > democratic legitimacy of a Legislature. > the precise roll of the judiciary was not well spelled out by the constitution. It was George Marshall who made the court what it is by defining its roll as the instituion that could rule on the constituionality of laws. But you display a bit of bias in your wording. When a court rules in ways you - I mean the royal here - don't like you accuse if of making law. When it rules in novel ways that you support it is upholding the constitution. once again this is not personal but a generic complaint about activist courts. The Warren court was activist but so has been the Rhenquist court. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
