Name: Anonymous 2007-10-03 3:32
We were not supposed to have a fucking 'living' constitution. Laws and their meaning don't change with time. It is the job of our judges to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. The law is also not meant to be flexible, it is meant to be strict and have specific meanings. We need judges who will follow the textual meaning of the constitution and give us rulings based on what the law SAYS, not what they think it should say.
To quote the Massachusetts state constitution:
"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."
This gets right to the heart of the debate. Should the courts be 'legislating from the bench?' Should their job be to make up the laws as they go along?
OR, should the job of the judiciary be to *INTERPRET* the laws that were enacted by our legislators? Clearly, if we do not want to have a nation of men rather than a nation of laws, it would require that we have judges on the bench who recognize this, for if we don't have judges who recognize that their job is merely to *interpret* the constitution (as opposed to legislating from the bench), you would no longer have a nation of *laws* and you would have a nation of *men.*
Some call those who legislate from the bench judicial activists, or 'activist judges.' For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it is important that we ensure only strict constructionist judges who will faithfully and accurately interpret the meaning of the constitution get the nomination. The judiciary was not meant to be able to write laws, we were supposed to have a divided government in which the legislative branch of government writes the laws, the executive signs them, and the courts interpret them. We are supposed to have three branches of government to help limit the powers of government, and judicial activism represents a departure from and a threat to our Republican form of government as we know it.
To quote the Massachusetts state constitution:
"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."
This gets right to the heart of the debate. Should the courts be 'legislating from the bench?' Should their job be to make up the laws as they go along?
OR, should the job of the judiciary be to *INTERPRET* the laws that were enacted by our legislators? Clearly, if we do not want to have a nation of men rather than a nation of laws, it would require that we have judges on the bench who recognize this, for if we don't have judges who recognize that their job is merely to *interpret* the constitution (as opposed to legislating from the bench), you would no longer have a nation of *laws* and you would have a nation of *men.*
Some call those who legislate from the bench judicial activists, or 'activist judges.' For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it is important that we ensure only strict constructionist judges who will faithfully and accurately interpret the meaning of the constitution get the nomination. The judiciary was not meant to be able to write laws, we were supposed to have a divided government in which the legislative branch of government writes the laws, the executive signs them, and the courts interpret them. We are supposed to have three branches of government to help limit the powers of government, and judicial activism represents a departure from and a threat to our Republican form of government as we know it.