Judges should not be liberal or conservative.
Or Republican or Democrat.
Judges should be impartial and should make all judgements based on the facts at hand.
Freedom should be less government intrusion into our lives.
But there needs to be some regulations. That is why we have legislators.
I agree. But sometimes agencies end up making laws by regulation, not legislators. That is, the bureaucrats make the laws mean what they want by issuing regulations.
That is true. But legislators can reel in the bureaucrats through legislative means.
Democracy only works if we all take an active roll in that Democracy.
Through prayers and actions, we can get it done.
They can, but when do they? In fact, I have heard that sometimes the laws are deliberately written so that the bureaucrats can write pretty much whatever rules they want.
But what bureaucrats do, can be changed.
Changing a law is a bit more difficult.
Legislators like to pass laws. Often the law will say something like this in the last paragraph: “The Dept. of HUD (or other agency) shall have the power to implement the provisions of this law.”
Then about once a year various bureaucrats may write regulations to implement the law, which may or may not be what the legislators had in mind. The agency will publish the proposed regulations in the Federal Register, allowing a certain time period for public comment.
The bureaucrats may or may not take into account the public comments. At the end of the comment period, they publish the final regulation. Now it’s the law.
Someone can appeal to his congressperson to try to get congress to take action to change the regs, but usually that doesn’t happen.
Or, as in the case at hand, a litigant may appeal to a Federal Court to overturn a regulation.
I do not dispute that sentiment. I only ask when does it actually happen?
That I can’t answer, my Friend.
In an ideal world yes.
But people are people and their own opinions and beliefs always enter their work no matter how impartial they try to be.
I’d rather stack the courts with people that agree with me than with those I hope might not agree but will do what’s right anyway.
I’d rather stack the courts with people who will always follow the facts and the law no matter whether I personally like the outcome or not. That is what the courts are for IMHO.
I do not believe in court stacking.
Why have courts, if you want them stacked with people who believe as you do?
Judges should base how they rule, not on politics, but based on laws, including what is and what is not Constitutional.
Just before World War II, Hitler stacked their courts with Nazis. They ruled not on what was lawful, but on what was best for the Nazi Party.
But they don’t.
Ergo, give me people that will do what’s best me.
In an ideal world you’d be right.
We don’t live in an ideal world.
More’s the pity.
I slightly disagree with you. If you take into consideration the “actual meaning” of words, then judges should be conservative and hold true to the constitution or in the case of a lower court, what the law they are defending actually is.
When you have liberal interpretation of a law you actually stretch it out of shape and drastic things can happen. The most obvious liberal mistake is when liberal interpretation says that the Constitution says that we have freedom “from” religion when the document says “of” religion. Even study outside of the constitution tells us that the founding fathers wanted to protect religious freedom. Early settlers came here for that specific reason.
Not to mention separation of church and state is condemned by 2 popes.
You’ve worded that way too vaguely
Separation of church and state has different meanings to different people.
This is why Elections matter. We need to preserve free speech and freedom to exercise one’s religion.
I worry every time I see an ad on TV from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Founders wanted to protect religion from government interference. The FFRA wants religion to have no rights at all.