On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:17:14AM -0500, Matthew Moen wrote:
> Thus spake Paul M Foster on the 02 day of the 11 month in the year 2002:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 08:41:24PM -0800, sanity wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > 3. ****** You __WILL__ wonder about some of the Constitutional
> > > >
> > > > Amendments, so I urge you to look at my analysis below! ******
> >
> > I've never in my life seen a state where there is more tampering with
> > the _constitution_ than there is in Florida. I can only imagine it's the
>
> I don't know. New Jersey (where I briefly lived before moving here)
> is certainly in the running.
>
> Past the deadline to appoint new a new candidate and your candidate is
> loosing? No problem! Just get the State Supreme Court to "make it all
> better" and ignore a specifically written law.
Yeah, this seems to be all the rage among courts, these days.
<snip>
> Our Federal Constitution (I'm not familiar with FL State Constitution,
> but I imagine it's similar) has a check for corrupt justices. It's called
> impeachment and removal. Unfortunately legislators are afraid to
> actually use it for fear of the "dangerous precedent it would create".
> They have a weak point there, but unfortunately these politicians are afraid
> to use it when it is indeed appropriate. When judges start making
> law, it's the legislative branch's _job_ to remove them, just as it's
> their job to remove executors who blatantly relieve themselves on the rule
> of law and due process by perjuring themselves under oath. These
> legislators are afraid removals will be perceived as purely political,
> when in these instances it's about principal and the rule of law. For
> the most part, unfortunately, the public is too blind to discern the
> difference. *sigh*
>
I can just imagine this now. Florida's (psychotic) Supreme Court decides
the polls can stay open until December or somesuch, just so we don't
"disenfranchise" anyone. And the legislature decides they've had enough.
So they start impeachment procedures and manage to actually pull it off.
Can you imagine the backlash from the court?! Of course, I think it
would be a good thing to teach some of these bozos some humility.
Russ mentioned a case back in the 1700's one time, the first one where
the federal Supreme Court decided to "interpret" the law. Might have
been a good idea to start impeaching judges right then. Then maybe we
wouldn't have had to deal with 200+ years of judges doing it.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:42 EDT