Quote Originally Posted by wombat2u2004 View Post
Fair enough. You all have a system that you believe works, if you are happy with that, then I say fair enough.

For me, a true Separation of the Powers does not allow judicial interference in political disputes (Bush v Gore), apportionment and re-districting (Baker v Carr). These disputes should handled by the Legislature or the Executive.
The Supreme Court has an increasingly central role in American governance.
Is that a good thing ???? Have the framers of your Constitution given YOU the right to amend the Constitution ??? They probably have.
Those positions tho are filled with politically appointed judges who stick their heads into the political arena, and themselves creating Legislation and amending the Constitution based on their own political ideals.
Good points.

I hear what you are saying baout the Judiciary getting invovled in political disputes. But, to me, you cannot have a TRUE separation of powers if only two branches are involved. The Judiciary needs to be the final arbeiter from time to time, when no other Constitutional solution can be found.

But, I cannot argue that the Judiciary here has become way to political. But what do you do? You can't have elections for them, because that makes it WAY political.

In the end... As long as the arguements stay about the Constitutionality of a law, it is working.


One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.
Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????
Do you really need to ask? The fact that she is not in jail is a disgrace.

My Dad saw an ad for some new exercise video she put out.... He was less than pleased.