well... I think they are supposed to apply the law as written, not make it up -- the only exception being the rare case where the laws are flagrantly unjust, as in Jim Crow. But I suppose that is where the art is, in discerning those areas.
Dana On Apr 7, 2005 8:16 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > I saw that editorial. This alleged extremist political line was the > > proposed review of the Schiavo case to see if her civil rights had > > been violated. That's the way I read it anyway. > > > > Yeah, that's it. The point the Republicans are making is that, as > you've pointed out, the federal courts only reviewed the procedural > facts of the case rather than the evidentiary ones. > > The Republicans are saying, "come on courts, you know what we meant > with our law: for you to review the evidence. But you purposely > didn't. Now you should be punished for your insolence." > > Basically the Republicans are saying that judges should be the > enforcement arm of the legislative branch of gov't rather than a check > on it. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153062 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
