>> cHat wrote: >> Judges should interpret the laws as written without allowing political >> or personal feelings to affect the interpretation. >> > >I always puzzle about what that means, specifically the word "interpret". > >A good judge should be vetted for his/her academic understanding of >the intent of the framers based on their written opinion and law. In >that sense, a good judge will rule on her belief of what the framers >would do rather than what they would do. > >If that's a fair assumption, then their work should be judged on their >strength of their reasoning and therefore obvious on the intent of >their rule. > >If we agree on that, then any judge should be able to rule on any >issue. Therefore discrediting them due to some perceived lack >expertise is ridiculous.
You mean that they should ignore case law and other decisions. Also by extension toss out most legal decisions since 1790 or so, prohibit women's vote or the vote by minority groups, blacks, Catholics and others. That wasn't the intent of the framers to allow those voting rights. So much for constitutional law and the Constitution being a living document. Given what you said, then its OK for slavery to be reinstituted - hey it was there when the Constitution was written and several of the framers were specifically pro-slavery. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225216 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
