Quote:
|
"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.
|
Because, as designated by the Marbury case, that is the courts responsibility. The country may not want the "nine [highly qualified and brilliant] lawyers" interpreting the constitution, but that is literally their job. It is their job to decide what is and what is not constitutional.
If a law came up saying that driving a car was illegal, and they said that was unconstitutional, would you have the same outcry because they are legislating from the bench, as you put it. No, you wouldn't. This is their job, nothing more, nothing less.
The lower courts in briefs and motions befor trials decide whether laws are applicable in the case and in some cases decide htat the law is not constitutional, and therefore the case does not go forward. Is that legislating from the bench? No, it is doing their job. Period.
--Onto Mark Levins--
Quote:
In "Men in Black," Levin takes us on an engrossing ride through history detailing how the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself a sort of tyrannical power that threatens our constitutional architecture and freedom.
From its pronouncements on the Commerce Clause, to its rulings on abortion, immigration, civil rights for terrorists, religious liberty, affirmative action, pornography and election law, Levin shows how the Court has usurped authority from the other two branches to become the most powerful of the three.
The judiciary was never intended to be a policy-making branch, unaccountable to the people. But that is precisely what it has become, as Jefferson and others ominously predicted. And the situation is getting worse.
In recent years, presumably out of some irresistable urge to impress "enlightened" European socialists, certain progressive Supreme Court justices have been flirting with the idea of grafting the laws and customs of foreign nations into the Constitution without a scintilla of authority under the Constitution to do so.
|
This man first off is extremely biased. Just look who he normally writes for...the National Review, a right-wing media corporation that is the conservative hack the liberals make Greenspan out to be (he is really not a hack, but he has to keep his job). So, take everything he says with a grain of salt. If you read the statement...the only thing, according to Mark Levin, that the court should do, is restrict rights (which actually it can't really do per se under the 9th amendment...but hey, we'll let that slide). But in fact, under the first courts ruling, they interpret, define, and decide whethere laws are unconstitutional. It is their job.
And onto his little statement about using international law when making their decisions. Whenever possible, the court, since international law existed...which is after the UN started up...so...not recent unlike what he said, has been used to help to justify their posistions. It is not the basis for their arguments, think of it more as a brace for the backbone, just helping to support it.