Should Judges be permitted to "Legislate from the Bench"?

Question

http://www.jail4judges.org/

Answer 1

Absolutely positively no. The Supreme Court is supposed to decide what is and is not against the Constitution. If it's against the Constitution, it is not legal. Laws can be made only by Congress and ratified by the Senate. The Court can not change or alter the Constitution. They must adhere to it and defend it as their oath of office states. liberal judges should not be allowed to pervert or subvert the Constitution to suit their agenda. Indeed, they are not allowed to do so but still try to get away with it. But their word is not the law. The Constitution IS the law. Judges that try to subvert the Constitution should be impeached and tried.

Answer 2

at the same time as one accuses the courts of "legislating", it does not recommend they are litteraly writing and signing regulation. they are accused of taking present regulation and increasing the reason or the definition of that regulation into what they want, so that they are defacto legislating. ie, the drastic boom of the interstate commerce clause from litteraly meaning commerce between states to giving the federal authorities the right to change each thing from training to organic world preserves. frequently, something abortion suitable is seen "legistlating", as attempting to hyperlink privateness, that is in effortless words an infered constitutional proper interior the first position, to abortion is a real stretch. less than the same good judgment, beating your little ones should be constituional threat-free because it occurs interior the privateness of ones living house. Even Warren himself had stated in a own diary with reagrds to the case , "I wouldnt ideas increasing the precedent on privateness better then has been before commonly used." The Kilo decision is often used also, and there are a large number of alternative situations the position they have stretched regulation to in high-quality condition their own applications. the entire undeniable reality that we've such huge desperaties between judicial interprtations and judges develop into an election difficulty coach inself how far we've strayed through the years from tight, narrow criminal reasoning, because precident is now so vauge and open ended, anythign will be interpreted utilising that standard of judicial evaluation. If we had stuck with with narrow criminal reasoning there wouldnt be the kind of large quantity of battles and regardless of the reality that there ought to nonetheless be disagreements, they wouldnt be so polarized, and maximum issues should be left to the states and the individuals. EDIT: discover me one connection with some coverage wonk or "chief" who says that judges are legistlating and explains it as meaning actually writing regulation. The "legistlating" is in simple terms the political catch word. each person who actual talks about this difficulty in debth said the bastardization of the regulation; not litteraly writing it. using the word is analogous to the dems who use "operating type". If taken litteraly, thats skill fantastically a lot anybody, because very last time I checked, virtutally anybody works, yet thats not what they are reffering to at the same time as they use that factor period.

Answer 3

When I consider what it is to be a Judge, I think about whether the issue is guilty or innocent-NOT Right or Wrong!
When a Justice goes into the realm of moral judgment rather than guilt or innocence he looses all impartiality and becomes a little Dictator of his own views! That is not what their job is supposed to be! The Supreme Courts with multiple Judges get that role!

So, in answer to your question, I would say that any single Justice who exercises his own believes rather than being an impartial arbitrator should be immediately removed and all of his decisions reviewed!

Answer 4

Absolutely not. They are in the judicial branch, not the legislative, which means that they have to interpret the law objectively, not be go on a personal crusade and make laws from their bench. What would happen to our check and balance if they don't strictly adhere to their function?

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Nothing is more important that the separation of powers. Some commented earlier on separation of church and state and I would just like to say I agree to a certain extent, however, there is no way that you could hold a political office without letting your religion show in some ways it just isn't possible. The only way would be if your an atheist.

Answer 6

This is an urban myth. Anytime one side or the other hates a ruling that goes against their beliefs they scream that the judge is "legislating from the bench". I've done my own research on it, and though I may not like a decision, the judges use the law to back up their ruling.

Anyone who propetuate this myth should be bitched slapped.

Answer 7

NO! You know this last election I searched and searched for info on local judges (without having to go through each one's record) in order to elect judges that do not do this. I could not find anything that would help. Again, I had to just go with a gut instinct on each one. Kind of pathectic but I don't know what kind of judges I seated/reseated.

BTW....love the wolf in sheep's clothing!

Answer 8

no...it is the only way liberal left wingers can hope to beat the majority...they cant win by electing people to legislate their viewpoints because there just arent enough of them so they try it this way......real bad ju-ju...I live in the fifth juc=dicial district and there have been a number of big political fights here in the past couple of years led by Democrats who want their type people on that bench...

Answer 9

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Separation of Powers is at LEAST as important as separation of Church and State. More so, really, because that IS in the Consitiution.

Answer 10

no, i dont think so.. i think they should limit themselves to making decisions in accordance with the law rather than "making it up as they go." its true that their decisions have effect on the laws that are made in congress, but like i said, they should use the law to rule.