Good evening Mark!
Mark Crispin wrote Frank Reichert...
And, you replied: > That is, indeed, the situation in Canada. Fortunately, unlike Canada, the > US has a series of check and balances which prevents such an outcome.
You've got to be kidding, right? Checks and balances. We have in place a politically appointed activist court. A court that serves itself and its legislative agenda by creating laws, and rights that never existed in statute law, or constitutional law. We have perhaps, the most prostitute judicial system on the face of the earth (perhaps a slight exaggeration)... but not by much!
No Frank. This is an extreme exaggeration. Most of these judges were appointed by Presidents who had to get their nominees through a liberal Senate or were appointed by liberals. You can argue with my characterization, but in fact, some of the appointments would have been surprises to the President who appointed them. I believe that Justice Kennedy was appointed by Clinton and he's one of the court's "swing votes" the way that O'Connor (appointed by Reagan) is. Also, I believe that Bush 41 (or Reagan) appointed Souter who is now one of the most reliably (and reactionarily) liberal.
The point is that the court is the slowest of the three branches of government to change. Since the "regime change" in DC that you keep talking about :-) began in 1994, and this particular court is the longest-running court without changes in our nation's history, it has much more of a "drag" effect on policy than usual and we are seeing some of those effects.
Remember that Roosevelt raised his "court packing" idea about 5 years after he was first elected (with a solid Congressional majority). So, as much as I share your concerns about this court inventing rights not in the constitution while refusing to protect rights that are, the fact is that what we are seeing is he inertia of the judicial part of the checks and balances system at work. I'm not ready to simply sweep it away because it is inconvenient, but rather am willing to be patient for the natural course of events to take place.
As for the "most prostitute judicial system on the face of the earth," could you please name for me a few other judicial systems you would prefer to be subject to in the situation where you are arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit? If ours is the worst, you should be able to name off quite a few. I'll settle for three.
Final note: Mark Crispin's reference was to the fact that the Canadian Parliament can overrule the top court in the land on any particular case. So, if for some reason, you are a "politically incorrect" defendant and the top court in the land sets you free on some "technicality" which is actually a protection to prevent police tyranny, then the Parliament can order that this "technicality" should be overlooked, and so you are back in the slammer.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
