Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Charrison,
If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?
****************
I want the dialog that 9 would bring to the table... some dissent is reasonable but not always 5-4 the same political way.... We are talking mainly about reafirming interpretation of law enacted v Constitution and revisiting old settled law when the society gets to vote every 2,4,&6 for their reps etc vs... lifetime of decision... say the dems win the house senate and white house society voted... then they enact law Then the court that the conservatives enshrined... overturn the law... I say boo to that... I wan't my vote to count and yours too. Society needs middle of the road justices I think.
Do you believe the constitution is a living document, or do you beleive it only supports what is clearly written?
On tough issues there often is no middle ground.
I used to be a strict constitutionalist... if it ain't explicit it ain't there. Today I'm more loose because of all the decisions rendered. Ya gotta be, I think.
I agree on the tough issues but, even there if it is always 5-4 the same way.. I get the feeling it is more political then judicial... I mentioned earlier that the law was created by a political process and if liberals created it but conservatives judge it... (how it is interpreted by the implementors) I find that inconsistant with the laws purpose at its inception.