Friday, June 25, 2004
How Do We Restrain an Out of Control Judiciary?
The Constitution intended to establish three branches of government which were co-equal and keep each other in check. Why? Many of the Founding Fathers understood that people are inherently sinful, and that too much power is a very bad thing. Right now Congress is contemplating stripping same-sex unions from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but we are left with few options.
The number one problem with the judiciary is that it has been used to advance policies which haven't been passed by an elected legislature. I have no doubt that a restrained pro-choice position would be adopted by Congress or by most states, even though I am for a pro-life policy. If democratic means were employed, much of the continual bickering over abortion would go away. Someone would win or lose, or some compromise would be reached. When a judge by fiat settles an issue, you get long-term fights over the judiciary instead.
There are greater complications as my undergraduate thesis lays out, but the lack of co-equal branches and the judiciary becoming a part of the legislative process is part of the problem.
The Constitution intended to establish three branches of government which were co-equal and keep each other in check. Why? Many of the Founding Fathers understood that people are inherently sinful, and that too much power is a very bad thing. Right now Congress is contemplating stripping same-sex unions from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but we are left with few options.
The number one problem with the judiciary is that it has been used to advance policies which haven't been passed by an elected legislature. I have no doubt that a restrained pro-choice position would be adopted by Congress or by most states, even though I am for a pro-life policy. If democratic means were employed, much of the continual bickering over abortion would go away. Someone would win or lose, or some compromise would be reached. When a judge by fiat settles an issue, you get long-term fights over the judiciary instead.
There are greater complications as my undergraduate thesis lays out, but the lack of co-equal branches and the judiciary becoming a part of the legislative process is part of the problem.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm more and more convinced that our current judicial problem is, in large part, the fault of a Congress that has abdicated its responsibilities.
Constitutionally, the Congress has the authority to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts (which were created by the Congress, after all), but they've inexplicably refrained from it, perhaps because people have far too lofty a view of the authority and wisdom of our black-robed tyrants.
If they'd done their job years ago, we wouldn't be in the current mess. On the other hand, I'm not sure you can put the genie back in the bottle at this point.
Post a Comment
Constitutionally, the Congress has the authority to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts (which were created by the Congress, after all), but they've inexplicably refrained from it, perhaps because people have far too lofty a view of the authority and wisdom of our black-robed tyrants.
If they'd done their job years ago, we wouldn't be in the current mess. On the other hand, I'm not sure you can put the genie back in the bottle at this point.
<< Home
