Do you think it is right for the Courts to be able to choose whats right for us in non legal question?

Question

Like, when less than 5% of the population disagree's with something, should it be banned because it offends them?
Take the 10 commandments in public buildings for example. There was nothing said for hundreds of years but when one or two voiced their opinion that it offended them, and others said the same (but still under 5% of the population), why should they recieve the consideration and not the majority that do accept it there?

Opinions?

Answer 1

I think that in circumstances like these, that it should effect at least 25% of the nation for the courts to get involved.

Answer 2

The political process is used to serve the will of the majority. The courts are used to check the power of the majority. The commandments weren't banned because they offended somebody, they were banned because they violated a constitutional principled that the courts are sworn to uphold.

I had to update. Thank you goose for giving me the best laugh I have had in a long time. The "so called" separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. You should try reading it sometime.
Thanks again, I'm still laughing.

Answer 3

Courts do not base their rulings on public opinion. The US is governed by a document called the Constitution which spells out the authority of the courts, also known as the judicial branch, as well as the 2 other branches of government, the executive branch (the president) and the legislative branch (congress). The idea of our Constitution is that these three branches, which sometimes disagree with each other over issues or the extent of their authority, balance out each other's power. Congress and the president are generally sensitive to public opinion because they face reelection regularly, but judges generally make their decisions based on a body of law that has developed over the history of the US.

Answer 4

It should be noted that just because people do not object to something that it doesn't make it right.

The basis for their objection is in the Constitution; specifically, the First Amendment. The rulings in those cases are based on that amendment. And, unlike a law, the Constitution would need to be amended by the same process that it takes to add and amendment.

So, there ya go.

Answer 5

To a point, I agree with you. I mean, if something is "offending" a couple of people but most people are fine with it, I think they should just get over it. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding the so-called separation of church and state.