PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
I guess I misunderstood when you seemed be heading in the direction of implying the court should never question the legislature and should merely enforce whatever laws the legislature of the moment has enacted.
There are, of course, marked, fundamental, differences between the compositions, responsibilities and authorities of a trial court and appellate courts (of review). And rather than repeat so much of what I’ve already said about the concept of a jury’s nullification of the law and/or the facts in a criminal courtroom, here is the link to one of my earlier posts.
And I will add that if, as a juror, I became convinced during the course of a criminal trial that I could not fulfill my oath to afford either the People or the Defendant due process of the - existing, applicable - law, I would refuse to continue my service.
I may prefer more struggle between the branches as I think that helps keep us from straying too far in any given direction but allows for progress to be made sometimes in spite of those who would oppose any progress at all.
I think it would be safe to say that you and I would have very different opinions regarding the behaviors of our appellate courts vis a vis the other two branches of our state and federal governments. As to the existing frictions between our legislative and executive branches, I am not so certain that I would not prefer that the two more often attempt to reach common ground ...
G
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem,’ (It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction) and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions or time and party, its members would become despots." — Thomas Jefferson
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -