Should the US Supreme Court Decide Cases Based on the Constitution or on Fairness?

[Ragoczy]

lucy,

Thank you, by the way, for the information on Switzerland's process, I found it very interesting.

Off-topic, but I'm curious as to the minaret issue you first described? It seems exceedingly odd to me to write into law an architectural issue like putting a tower on a building ... what's the underlying problem this law is supposed to solve?

[mkemse]

There is law and precedent on that. If a judge throws out evidence or testimony (or allows it) that there is either written law or precedent on, then any verdict will likely wind up in appellate court, where the judge may be overridden -- since judges don't like that, they do follow the law and precedent. If there's actually no law or precedent (extremely rare), then yes the judge does have to use his own judgment, but even that isn't in a vacuum -- it's based on the law and precedent for things similar to what he's deciding. It's extremely rare for judges to go very far afield.

Thanks

[hopperboo]

I didn't choose either of these options. I believe there needs to be a balance between law and common sense.

Life isn't 'fair' however, and I shy away from using that term discussing judgments.



i.e. Putting someone in jail that shoots a person who is breaking into their home because the there is some loophole in the 'law' that allows that, well that is just lacking in common sense.

[denuseri]

I personally believe that our constitution is set up to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible and still retain enough common sence to work while preserving as many freedoms as it can for the individuals of the nation and still preseve the security and posterity of that same nation.

We have a Democracy in the form of a Republic as opposed to a True Democracy.

Unfortunately the moral complacency of the people is slowly eroding the system"s ability to sustain itself.

Mob rule which is what many call a true democracy has never really worked in practice to the benifit of any goven society of a certian size or larger. It works well enough in small groups to a limited extent, but when applied to any body of citizens larger than around 100 people it becomes truely untenable. Which is why even the Athenians themselves relied on the executive powers of a smaller body of government and when that didnt work a tyrant assumed authority.

[lucy]

lucy,

Thank you, by the way, for the information on Switzerland's process, I found it very interesting.

Off-topic, but I'm curious as to the minaret issue you first described? It seems exceedingly odd to me to write into law an architectural issue like putting a tower on a building ... what's the underlying problem this law is supposed to solve?

You're very welcome.
The minaret issue, oh my... *hangs head in shame*
Of course it's not supposed to solve any existing problem. There are currently exactly 2 minarets in all of Switzerland, and none of them causes any problem at all.
It was an initiative started by a right wing xenophobic party who also happens to be the largest party in Switzerland. Of course it's not about architecture, but a populistic initiative to 1. keep happy the right wing xenophobic idiots which are already party members, 2. try to get some new right wing xenophobic idiots to join the party and 3. to generally express their right wing xenophobic idiocy and 4. do something against islamistic terrorism. For me, that last (which is what they say) just about explains everything. I've met jellyfishes which were capable of more coherent lines of thought.

It will be voted down, tho. At least i veryveryvery much hope so.

[Thorne]

It will be voted down, tho. At least i veryveryvery much hope so.

Never underestimate the power of the right wing xenophobes. All they have to do is make it an issue of patriotism, as in, "Vote to tear down the minarets or you're a traitor!" Quite a few people will, in all likelihood, fall for that line. After all, they fell for it her in the US.

[lucy]

Never underestimate the power of the right wing xenophobes. All they have to do is make it an issue of patriotism, as in, "Vote to tear down the minarets or you're a traitor!" Quite a few people will, in all likelihood, fall for that line. After all, they fell for it her in the US.

I don't underestimate the power of idiocy, hipocrisy and xenophoby. But i also refuse to give up hope

[Ravenshurst]

All I have to do is think of something I said a really, REALLY long time ago...."I, state name here, do solemly swear....to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic..." I have changed, the world has changed, but I don't see how that releases me from my vow. I no longer defend, of course, but I still support.

Gonzo

[Ragoczy]

All I have to do is think of something I said a really, REALLY long time ago...."I, state name here, do solemly swear....to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic..." I have changed, the world has changed, but I don't see how that releases me from my vow. I no longer defend, of course, but I still support.

Gonzo

Thank you for your service.

And that's a powerful oath. I really believe we should do away with the Pledge of Allegiance in school, spend that time teaching kids the facts that will make them want to be loyal to this country instead of forcing an oath of loyalty on them when they don't even know what the words mean, and then require an oath when someone registers to vote. Not a pledge to a flag, but to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.