Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to “JUDGES ARE WRONG BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM”
you make a valid argument, empty_handed_painter.
And I know of no constitutional stipulation or amendment which negates world opinion as a reason to adjudicate fairly. The Bush administration's blatant disregard for our civil liberties (the Patriot Act) and world opinion and international law (the invasion of Iraq) show his true feelings toward any legal institution or ruling.
And, kooka, you're right. Judges, once they become Supreme Court justices, must render decisions for common good, what is fair for the people -- and sometimes that is going to be diametricly opposed to popular opinion and factional opinion. And that doesn't make it wrong.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 27, 2005 at 1:18 AM
| link to this | reply
the rule of law
do we understand this?
when the U.S. was founded, it was basically considered a loose federation of independent states, or separate nations. With the constitution, these states, to a certain extent, reliquished their status as such to the central government by ratifying the document.
Even today, the role of central government versus states' rights is disputed and disagreed upon. However, we notice that, after a civil war where the central government was for awhile not recognized by certain states, in the main, we recognize the United States of American as one country, not 50 separate.
The sovereignty of the individual states has been relinquished to the government in Washington, D.C.
now, we are entering an entirely new phase in world affairs, where the sovereign states of the world must begin to consider what is good for the world as a whole rather than submitting to selfish concerns that are detrimental to world concerns.
conservative legislators, particularly from the Southern States (who, by the way, have had problems recognizing Washington's preeminence for 150 years) fail to recognize that the U.S. is part of the world. They resist cooperation. They act as if the U.S. dominates the world and that the world should submit itself to U.S. interests solely.
this makes the U.S. a coercive, dominating force in the world, with an attitude much like that of the great conquerors of history, that the U.S. rules the entire world.
problem is, there are hundreds of sovereign states in this world -- not just the U.S.
we all will prosper once we recognize that sovereign states must work cooperatively for world advantage rather than compete for dominance.
for our country to continue to want to dominate world affairs will eventually deplete us in every way, economically in particular.
and I don't see anything in the constitution that negates working toward world cooperation.
if anyone does, they should quote the article and passage.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 25, 2005 at 3:20 PM
| link to this | reply
janes
You are a conservative so the Constitution is meaningless to you and it puzzles me as to why you would even try to use such ideas to defend your statements. You back up Bush no matter how much he sets things up to be unconstitutional. After all the Patriot Act is 100% unconstitutional and is one of the most insulting legislation ever passed in this country. I have no idea why the courts have not step in and gotten rid of it. I would trust the courts over Bush any day to do what is right and what is Constitutional.
Please give an example of where the courts have gone against the Constitution in favor of world opinion.
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 25, 2005 at 2:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Excuse me,
but we've had a Supreme Court Justice or two blatantly state that they are ruling according to WORLD OPINION, in direct opposition to constitutional law. Sooooo, let's see, if I'm a judge or justice and decide that I prefer what a foreign country is doing and it's in direct opposition to my own country's constitution . . . wouldn't you have a problem with that?
If you say that such a ruling is fine . . . then you might as well throw out the Constitution and start from scratch, or perhaps you'd prefer a little anarchy?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on May 24, 2005 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply