I know that sometimes arguments can go on forever without resolution so some final authority is required. The founders chose to make that final authority the Supreme Court which could say yes or no to nearly any question. With this arrangement, five (5) justices can decide right and wrong for over three-hundred million (300,000,000) people. This defies good sense and invites injustices. If five (5) people acted in concert to subvert our traditions, there is no way to prevent a deliberate destruction of our culture. Judges who have political agendas don't belong on the court, but they are there and that hurts us all.
The notion of a final arbiter is valid, but who should it be? Five (5) out of nine (9) seems too narrow an authority for such monumental decisions. Since we are a country in which majorities generally rule, it seems to me that when a decision is unpopular enough, a body which is more representative of the people should be able to nullify that decision. Minorities, of course, should be protected but if a super majority of the people rejects a ruling through the house of representatives, the majority's interests should prevail.
Many times legal decisions are not just, because of some minute technicality. When clever attorneys are able to split hairs to win arguments which result in public outrage, there should always be some recourse. Judges are, after all, only humans, most of them, anyhow.
The notion of a final arbiter is valid, but who should it be? Five (5) out of nine (9) seems too narrow an authority for such monumental decisions. Since we are a country in which majorities generally rule, it seems to me that when a decision is unpopular enough, a body which is more representative of the people should be able to nullify that decision. Minorities, of course, should be protected but if a super majority of the people rejects a ruling through the house of representatives, the majority's interests should prevail.
Many times legal decisions are not just, because of some minute technicality. When clever attorneys are able to split hairs to win arguments which result in public outrage, there should always be some recourse. Judges are, after all, only humans, most of them, anyhow.
No comments:
Post a Comment