• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should the judiciary decide the social and moral policy for a nation?

Riprorin

Banned
Of course not.

Here are some examples:

The courts are decreeing radical changes to our rights and culture, and redefining personal and societal behavior

In the very recent past (a partial list):

?Campaign Finance Reform?: You, citizen, may not run ads for or against a political candidate or issue unless those already in power say it is o.k. for you to do so. You may not contribute to a political party unless it is in a manner and amount approved by those already in power.

Personal Beliefs (if you are a Boy Scout): Every group of citizens has an equal right to use public land and to enter into contracts, unless members of your group have personal religious beliefs not approved of by a judge. There is no need to demonstrate that anyone is harmed by your group using a campground; it is enough to suggest that some members possess politically incorrect religious beliefs.

Marriage: The institution of marriage no longer has any particular meaning.

Words: In one jurisdiction, you could not say the entire Pledge of Allegiance in any public place. We note that the Supreme Court has since given the words under God a reprieve, but did not settle the issue. We can expect another court to ban the Pledge before long.

Higher education: If you work hard and follow all the rules and meet all the requirements to obtain a publicly-funded scholarship, but wish to study spiritual things in college, you are forbidden to take advantage of the scholarship you have earned.

Rights of the disabled: If you cannot speak for yourself and are injured, government is not permitted to make a distinction between your right to die and a supposed right of your husband to starve you to death.

Link
 
Courts don't, they rule on the Constitutionality of Laws. If the Law is not Constitutional, it gets struck down.
 
Courts certainly have necessary functions, such as reviewing the decisions of other judges, resolving legitimate disputes, and keeping the criminal justice system running. Deciding social and moral policy for a nation, however, is another thing entirely.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts certainly have necessary functions, such as reviewing the decisions of other judges, resolving legitimate disputes, and keeping the criminal justice system running. Deciding social and moral policy for a nation, however, is another thing entirely.

Courts only have to decide social and moral policy because nut cases have congress decided it first.
 
We can expect another court to ban the Pledge before long

I love the way you twist words into propaganda. Good job!

Doesn't it sound more likely that the words "under God" that were grafted onto the Pledge in the 1950s would be struck, rather than the entire Pledge?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Marriage: The institution of marriage no longer has any particular meaning.
Yeah, because we all know divorce has given a lot of meaning to the institution of marraige. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: JacobJ
The government has NO BUSINESS dictating morality. Period.

Courts != government - if you don't think the government should dictate morality, then you should appreciate the willingness of the courts to strike down government legislation of a moral nature 😉
 
Marriage: The institution of marriage no longer has any particular meaning.

You decry gov't intrusion into people's beliefs, yet you depend on the gov't to give meaning to marriage?

What marriage means to me has nothing to do with the gov't, if it does to you, you're a sorry lot.
 
Back
Top