Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Some very good and simple reading on the Supreme Court and its role

And it's 3 years old.

From the Independent Womens' Forum with examples given that any lay person can get his or her head around.

Here are a few quotes from the article:

"Under our constitutional system, courts are required to police the boundaries established by the Constitution."

"Federalism acts as a constraint on government — preventing the national bureaucracy from becoming all powerful, and preserving individual liberty by keeping government power close to the people."

"“Federalism” has recently become a term that some activists use with hostility and contempt."

"Judicial activists may use their authority to achieve either conservative or liberal results. As such, the terms “judicial restraint” and “judicial activism” are neither inherently “conservative” nor inherently “liberal.”"

"If judges refuse to abide by the elementary principle of restraint, and operate as philosopher kings, our constitutional system becomes both unpredictable and unstable."

"Fearing that they might fail to persuade a majority of the public or elected legislators to adopt their views, some special interest groups turn to the courts to enact their agenda by judicial fiat."

"Special interest groups hope to stall the confirmation process until the election of a more sympathetic administration - one that may be willing to appoint judges who will legislate a particular social agenda from the bench."

"If our Constitution is to mean anything at all, the boundaries between state and national power must be respected."

Hear, hear, ladies!

No comments: