That is, instead of a single judge. My position on this issue is that it is unconstitutional for a single judge to make rulings on cases nullifying the votes of millions of people in a state-wide refererendum. I consider this in unconstitutional and is a form of tyranny. I realize that sometimes a single judge has to make a ruling initially, and then the case can work its way up. However, there have been federal judges such as Mariana Pfaelzer ( a Jimmy Carter appointed judge) from California who nullified Proposition 187 which passed in 1994 receiving five million votes. Pfaelzer struck down this proposition making it permanently inoperative. I believe that a single judge should not be able to block such a proposition with the stroke of a pen.
I appreciate any opinions you may have on this subject. Please include in your answer your reasons for agreeing or disaggreeing with my opinion. Thanks!
2007-06-25
06:34:36
·
4 answers
·
asked by
p f
2
in
Government