|
|
Posted by FatKat on 08/11/06 20:38
Bob wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2006 14:30:59 -0700, "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's the enforcement of laws that makes them binding, and
> >that's where the judges come in.
>
> Spoken like a true fascist. Justice at the end of a gun barrel. The
> Chairman would just love you.
The chairman? Sinatra was a fascist? Or did you mean Iaccoca?
>
> >> Dio you want the judiciary to make the laws?
>
> >Actually, they've been doing that for ages. It's called "precedent".
>
> That is not the same as law.
Being that your knowledge of what the law is is unclear, what you
consider to be "the same as law" is similarly vague, and clarification
requires more than resort to an open-soure dictionary/encycolpedia.
Rather, since we're talking about law, I relied on my copy of Black's
which I had to type verbatim because cutting and pasting seemed
so....lazy.
Precedent - among other things, Black's definition says:
"A rule of law established for the first time by a court for a
particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar
cases".
oooooh - that must smack Bob of....right-wing fascist Bolshevism!!!!
> >Many judges are elected.
>
> I am talking about federal judges. They are the ones who rule on
> federal law.
....who are appointed by an elected official (the president) and
confirmed by a body of other elected officials - the Senate, and remain
subject to impeachment for misconduct. Further, these jduges don't act
in secrecy - their reasoning can be found in the bound volumes of
either the Federal Supplement or the Federal Reporter or on-line.
There may be much about our nation that is patently undemocratic but
neither the courts in general nor the federal judiciary in specific fit
that mold.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|