You Be The Judge... 02/07/2005 Few Americans realize just how much other countries watch them. Whatever is happening in the States will be seen by the majority of the world's population and will be approved of or castigated according to each country's stance towards the US. Just as an instance, few foreigners will be unaware of the recent trial of Michael Jackson and its outcome, and most of them will have opinions on the judgement. Yet how many of us would be aware of any similar charges brought against a pop star in France or Australia, for instance? Only America is subject to such intense scrutiny by friend and foe. And only America is as well known in so many aspects.The reasons for this are fairly obvious: the dominance of the American film industry means that most films shown abroad originate in and are about America; the importance of the States in world affairs means that all countries have to be interested in what is happening there; the internationalism of large American corporations means that their products will be advertised everywhere. But these sources of information can sometimes produce false impressions in foreign observers.An example of this comes from my experience of working with 14 to 16 year old kids in Britain: they were all convinced that America was a land of constant shootings, murders, car theft and bank robberies and they refused to believe that Kathy had never witnessed even one of these events. Although it's true that their warped values made them regard this as cool (America is always the land where the streets are paved with gold, it seems), it is also true that theirs was a valid conclusion on the evidence they had. The action movies and news reports that they saw were full of such events and no mention was ever made of rural and small town America where nothing much ever happens.So the world's view of America is formed largely by the media and will be accurate in some respects and grossly distorted in others. I have mentioned elsewhere that no foreigner understands the American electoral process even though every presidential election is followed closely in most countries. In Britain we regard the matter as mystifying but entertaining, typically American in its noise and hype, its banner-waving and partying (well, it looks like a party to us). We have no understanding of the issues involved and would be quite well-informed even to know that the Democrats are liberals and the Republicans conservative.Very strong impressions of the American legal system are formed as well. All foreigners are astounded at the huge amounts of money awarded in damages cases in the States. It seems beyond reason that millions of dollars are at stake when someone slips and hurts themself on a company forecourt. Yet the point is taken in places like Britain and damages can now get into the thousands instead of the few hundred previously awarded. Even so, you would be more likely to receive a large award in a slander or libel case than you would in a matter of mere physical injury.Celebrity trials are another area of amazement for the foreigner. To see the evidence debated over and over again by the media, the lawyers putting their cases to the cameras and the fans demonstrating outside the court makes it seem very much like a party again. Such a circus would not be allowed in Britain, where things are kept much more under wraps until after judgement has been given. And, as Natalee Holloway's case has highlighted, the Dutch keep things even farther away from the public gaze.To some extent, these differences are a matter of style. In America the public has a right to know and they exercise that right; elsewhere the public has a right to let the professionals get on with it and to be advised after the event. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. The foreigner can look on at American celebrity trials and damages cases with amusement but there will be a recognition that it's a way of doing things that is as valid as any other.But there is one thing about the American judicial system that scandalizes the Brits at least: the political appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. One of the cornerstones to the British legal system is that it be non-political; it is there to interpret the law and hand down judgement without consideration of any possible political ramifications. Judges are appointed from within the legal system and by the legal system and their political stance is not a factor or even known. They will be those lawyers who have had long and distinguished careers and who have demonstrated their ability to reach judgements based upon the law alone (without regard for their personal preferences, in other words).This is a principle as sacred to the British as the separation of church and state is to the Americans. The intent is that political considerations have no place in interpretation of the law. Politicians may make the laws but it is the job of the legal system to interpret and apply those laws; let the lawmakers be clear in what they intend, therefore.The system has worked well for hundreds of years. Politicians, be they king, commons or lords, have been unable to interfere with the decisions of the courts. Lately there has been some complaint from the political left that judges are invariably old when appointed and are therefore more likely to be conservative in their judgements. But that is how it should be; the interpretation of law is hardly the place to experiment with wild and wacky new ideas that may or may not work. Let the left change the laws when they are in power and the courts will do their duty and interpret them.The end result of all this is that any Britisher finds it hard to get his head around the American idea of political appointment of judges. I have found it as difficult to understand as I have found it to get used to bread that tastes sweet. With the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor from the Supreme Court, I now watch a process that, to be honest, merely deepens my incomprehension.There are, apparently, nine judges on the Supreme Court bench: four conservatives (Republican appointees), four liberals (Democrat appointees) and Sandra Day O'Connor who, although appointed by a Republican president, has proved to be the swing voter in most decisions, being unpredictable upon which side of the fence she would opt for. We can now expect a summer of conflict as the President tries to get the Senate to confirm whoever he chooses to nominate as her successor. Being a Republican, he is expected to nominate a conservative; the Democrat minority in the Senate will fight this tooth and nail, no doubt.I am told that a part of this fight will be the questions that the Democrats will put to the nominee: they will ask him which way he would vote on certain contentious issues. Excuse me? My mind boggles at the implications of this. I thought the idea of having a Supreme Court was that it would interpret the most difficult and complex laws on the statute books. Are you now saying that you will not have a judge if he doesn't interpret things the way you see fit? Doesn't that make you the highest court in the land? And what experience of the law have you to qualify for such a position?This is all too much for a poor foreigner to understand. Can someone please explain to me (as simply as possible please) what this is all about? And, while you're at it, give me a few hints as to the benefits of having politically appointed judges in the first place...
Clive
Ned This is perhaps why the Supreme Court has been making law for the last thirty years instead of interpreting it. Date Added: 02/07/2005
Gone Away Hmmm, that seems almost like an admission that the system doesn't work, Ned. Is it possible the Brits got something right for a change? ;) Date Added: 02/07/2005
Ned The recent tendency to turn confirmation hearings into interrogation sessions leads to choosing ideology over qualifications. This results in a court that does not weigh the law against the Consitution but against agenda. Never in history have the sessions gone on this long and been so infected with political rhetoric. You are exactly right in saying that the position requires that your decisions be based on law and not personal feelings; not only just based on law, but on the highest law of the land, The Constitution. Date Added: 02/07/2005
Gone Away That's certainly the way it looks from outside... Date Added: 02/07/2005
Josh >This is perhaps why the Supreme Court has been making law >for the last thirty years instead of interpreting it. Pish Posh. The supreme court is the final arbiter on questions of legality not explicitly addressed in law, questions of the propriety of written law in relation to the somewhat amorphous notion of what is "constitutional", and therefore are the de facto legislators of last resort. Any politicization or carping about judicial activism is simply whining about decisions that weren't rendered to a particular party's liking. And any suggestion that rigorous tests of idealogy are somehow a "new" phenomenon is just pollyannish and/or politically expedient way to criticize the opposition, and publically browbeat them into swallowing a nominee whose political and judicial leanings are, at least in their eyes, bona fide. Here's how this plays out: Bush nominates a nutty bookburner. Congress balks. Bush takes his case to the public, again proclaiming injury by "the party of obstruction". Bush then withdraws the nutcase, and then safely floats in another Scalia or Rehnquist to assure that the far right wing conservative agenda can be serviced to he and his political constituents' liking. America is a young society, but none of this is new. It's just how the game is played. Date Added: 02/07/2005
Josh I might add that O'Connor was nominated by Reagan and quickly confirmed unanimously by a Democratic majority. Its a matter of willingness to compromise. Reagan was, unlike many who chose to invoke his legacy to further political aspirations today, all too aware that a politcal mandate does not mean the other part of society is completely wrongheaded and in need of proselytical purification. Date Added: 02/07/2005
Ned I would contend again, that they are making law instead of interpreting it, when something like Roe v. Wade is decided under of all things, the right to privacy. That to me, is a clear perversion of the Constitution that resulted in making law rather than interpreting it. Date Added: 02/07/2005
Gone Away And now you're fighting over things that I know nothing about. But that's okay; go to it, I say! My position remains the same: why the heck is it a political matter in the first place? Justice is supposed to be blind, remember? :D Date Added: 02/07/2005
LT This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial process. Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal, it just deemed those laws forbidding abortions unconstitutional. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important difference. The Supreme Court did not make any law permitting abortion (or capital punishment, by the way). They merely interpret the constitutionality of each law. If there were no such law in place, the Supreme Court could not enact any policy and/or rule on its constitutionality. As far as a political process, the checks and balances are set up so that a majority of one branch can have a say in the policies and running of the other branches, thereby making all three branches equal. When people like DeLay bemoan the Schiavo decision (which was a non-decision, i.e., a refusal to get involved) and then threaten to "hold those judges responsible," this shows a basic ignorance of his function. He can enact legislation and pass laws, but he cannot do so if it is unconstitutional and he cannot force judges to adhere to his political viewpoint. Likewise, democrats cannot (but attempt to, anyway) force judicial nominees to admit their biases or perceived biases on the basis of court cases that the judges either ruled on in the past or may rule on in the future. What these representatives of ours can do is make sure the judges have the ability to judge each case on its own merits rather than feel beholdent to the party in power which was the party that nominated them. I can see why the political aspect of appointing judges is hard to understand, but it is our representatives who are supposed to be acting on our behalf, and if it appears to be nonsensical (think Clarence Thomas and the hearings) it is because the Congress hijacked the proceedings, not the process itself that is at fault. I also understand that human nature being what it is, this type of partisan attitude will never go away. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away LT, while you have not really made the process any more clear to me, you have at least shown that it is far more complex than I had thought. I suspected that it might be so but then, if I don't ask, I don't find out. There is just one final point I'd like to make in the matter: how I wish that you guys would consider more how it all looks to an outsider. All we see is squabbling over things that were settled in our own judicial systems hundreds of years ago. Cannot someone persuade the politicians to be a bit more reasonable in their deliberations? Date Added: 03/07/2005
Ned The point of bringing up Roe v.Wade was not to say that they passed any law making abortion legal, the judiciary branch passes no laws. It was the fact that they ruled under the right to privacy act, which seems incongruous to me since the right that they are protecting is one that involves the ending of a life. This is how law is made by the judiciary, through perversions in interpretations. Argue as you will whether the fetus is a human yet or not, it undeniably perishes in an abortion along with all potential its life may have held. William Pryor called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history”. He was confirmed btw as US Circuit Court Judge for the 11th circuit this month amidst much gnashing of teeth from liberals. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh > Justice is supposed to be blind, remember? I dunno, Gone. Really, if you look at the record of the Supreme court, past justices, there is not a solid case to be made for rampant, blatant politicization, with the possible exception of some antebellum schnooks like Tawney (We fought a war over the ignorance of people like him). Now, I dunno the state of affairs in pommyland, but would there be some sort of prohibition against, say, a former Irish republican becoming a judge in Britain? Surely, someone nutured in such a hostile environment would see judicial propriety from a different point of view, and being only human, might render decisions that the mainstream would consider nutty, right? Who's to say that there is no politcal bias among the legal committee that chooses judges? No, I think the future of justice can be summed up in one word: Robots. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away .oO(Uh oh, I think I've put my spoke in where angels fear to tread...) :> Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away I hear what you're saying, Josh, but the scenario you imagine just wouldn't happen in Britain. On the "big island" the whole Catholic/Protestant thing ceased to be an issue 150 years ago and it is the onlt thing that keeps the conflict going in Ireland. In general (and I'm aware of no exceptions), judges have been so steeped in law for so long in England that the outside world hardly means a thing to them anymore. The passions of youth? You must be joking! All they are fit for (and this includes the selection committee) is interpreting dry and dusty law so that's what they do. It's the only thing they've ever known. So you could say that Britain has evolved a process of having robots decide, geriatric though they may be. ;) Anyway, I was looking forward to a good fight between you and Ned; what happened to that? :D Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh Oooh, let's twist some political hotbuttons 'til they bleed! "Well, looking at his stance on stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion and war, it seems Mr. Bush is only interested in killing you if you are alive and wish to stay that way." Gnash Gnash. ;) Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh I don't like to fight over politics. It just makes people less tolerant, especially when both parties are working to squeeze every ounce of emotion out of every issue they can; apparently it wins elections. If anything, I'd rather put a pie in the face of all of 'em and go have a beer with my republican friends. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Ned But see that is exactly the point Josh, it shouldn't matter what Bush's particular views are. The Judiciary is supposed to be a check in the system. It isn't supposed to be a tool of either party. Sure each party in power drools over the resignation or death of a Justice whose decisions irk them and the possiblity of replacing that Justice with someone more to their liking in ideological veins, but is that right? Strangely enough, I am not Mr. Bush's biggest fan although I shudder to think of what would have occurred under a Gore presidency. I am more of a libertarian in viewpoint which may seem odd, considering my stance on issues like abortion which many people see as an absolute right. But if we are to continue as a nation, we must look to our foundation. The Federal Government growing in power while reducing the power of states to govern themselves concerns me. If my country is doing the right thing, I don't give a hang what the rest of the world thinks about it, but then I am always up for a good rumble. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away Here, have a beer. Both of you. :) Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh Well, Ned, it shouldn't matter, but it does. It would be the epitome of silliness for me to assume that Mr. Bush won't take the opportunity now afforded him to appoint a judge to render decisions in favor of his constituency. A judge can go through his/her entire career without ever signaling any political allegiance, yet the record is there, and rarely does this sort of logic fail. There are, however, judges out there who would and do appeal to a base sense of judicial propriety, but in Washington, good guys finish last. The real travesty here is that there are no Ronald Reagans or Tip O'Neils to be found. And any argument for the majority and for states' rights is flawed at its core -- No majority party in history has managed to disabuse themselves of the notion that more government is only bad when the other party thinks of it. As a libertarian, I suppose you also must be dismayed about the recent emininent domain case. There can be no argument about who that ruling was meant to benefit, and it certainly wasn't the citizenry. Was that judicial activism? Not really. Was it 5 judges acceding to the notion that corporate interests and public interests are somehow one and the same? Perhaps. I don't know about you, but that scares the piss out of me. I think it should scare a lot more people, but apathy is no excuse, and people get the government they deserve, I suppose. So no, it shouldn't matter, but it certainly does. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh And it starts. You see, Gonzalez would be far too good a justice for America. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Ned Well, I don't really disagree with you Josh and yes, I am most certainly dismayed at the recent eminent domain decision. My point is that the Senate takes entirely too much power when what they are debating is any suspicious sounding quote they can find, any sound-byte, any possible avenue through which they might impeach the nominee on personal beliefs. I thought Gonzales was an excellent appointment for Attorney General and I think Bush should nominate him for Supreme Court Justice. At least we would get to see both sides squirm. I think if more people watched the confirmation hearings, a lot of these guys would be out of a job. Amazing what sitting down with a beer can do for settling disputes, maybe we should ship a few cases to Arlen Specter. Date Added: 03/07/2005
prying1 Once again you have written an excellent post. Wish I had some answers. I do think if we left the decision of Supreme Court Justices up to the British method - quote - our Judges are appointed from within the legal system and by the legal system and their political stance is not a factor or even known. - end quote - We would end up with a bunch of crooked lawyers running the country into the dirt... I also think some of the recent decisions of our Supreme Court would have been better decided had they played Paper, Rock, Scissors... Date Added: 03/07/2005
Actressdancer I think, in regards to the last response, that there is another factor worth mentioning: We, as American's, would mostly have a difficult time veiwing the Supreme Court as anything other than what it is. Not impossible, mind you, as I hold the English courts in high regard, just difficult. To wrap our mind around the idea that the courts NOT be political in nature is asking us not to eat pumpkin in sweet dishes. This is not just an issue of the Supreme Court. The 'pettier' cases that I encounter in my own meager existance exemplify the same politcal pulls. In point- a friend has been fighting her ex on keeping her young son (with many health problems) from being vaccinated. The first judge who was presiding over the custody hearing was very sympathetic to her cause (and was a blatant liberal). Upon his sudden illness, another, ultra-conservative judge was assigned to the case. Now, he won't even hear out her compromise to only administer mercury-free versions of the vaccines. I realize that I am not offering much of an opinion here.. and that is quite on purpose. My views would probably garner a lynching... from both sides of the isle. Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away Good point regarding the lawyers, Paul. As to recent Supreme Court decisions, I think I'll remain tactfully silent on that one... ;) Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away Don't get me wrong, Actress, the British courts also make some very strange decisions at times. But they do not seem to be politically-motivated. I think allowing obvious political bias into the court does increase the chances of unfair decisions to be made. Whether it's possible to get rid of it now is, of course, another question entirely. Date Added: 03/07/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) I believe all this goes back to the writing of the constitution, when the Founding Fathers misinterpreted the British one. They put the President on a pedestal outside the basic political process (Congress) but gave him a political role as well. So the President is really an elected King. As Head of State he embodies the nation and, to some extent, he's expected to be nonpolitical in some of his roles ~ appointing Supreme Court judges being one of them. Since the President represents a political party, however, he's obviously going to be biased and his co-pols in Congress and out will expect preference. In our Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is also a member of Parliament, we expect bias. So all appointments for judge come from the Lord Chancellor, who acts on behalf of the non-political Queen, though he/she is actually a member of the Cabinet. Our "Supreme Court" consists of a handful of Law Lords, who are also judges and appointed in the same way. In the end most decisions handed down reflect the prevailing ideology. How could it be otherwise? Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away Interesting that you say "prevailing ideology", John. I think that may be what has been annoying Republicans over here - they have a majority in just about every institution in sight but, thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, very often the decisions of the Supreme Court have not reflected the prevailing ideology at all... Date Added: 03/07/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) Maybe they should be thankful that in the biggest decision of all, it was O'Connor who closed down the recounts and gave George Bush the Presidency in 2000. Surely that was worth all the other disappointments put together? :-) Date Added: 03/07/2005
Gone Away Good point, John. :D Date Added: 03/07/2005
Josh Republicans are just venting. They spent 50 years in the hole, and they are sure to return eventually -- I suppose they figure they might as well rewrite the rules to their liking in the time alotted. ;-) Date Added: 04/07/2005
Josh Elected King? My word. Perhaps it appears that way with ol' Dubya in office, but that was exactly the opposite of the framers' intent. I do believe the king held far more sway in jolly ol' Engalund at the time -- so saying that we incorrectly modeled out government on yours as it exists today seems a bit of a stretch. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away I think John is referring to the the mindset of the time, Josh. Remember that the French Revolution was still in the future at the time the Constitution was written so it was hard to imagine a government without some kinglike influence (the Brits had tried it but it had been a disaster - Cromwell proving a worse tyrant than any king). The Americans did as best they could in the circumstances, inventing a system that was essentially democratic but with a head of state that looks suspiciously like a king or "Lord Protector" in his powers and pre-eminence. Indeed, if one considers the lack of power invested in the British monarchy today and compares that with the extensive powers available to a President, one would have to ask the question, "Which is closer to our idea of monarchy?" Date Added: 04/07/2005
Josh Yes, Mr. gone, but there have been many, for lack of a better term, "periods" when the executive was not the powerful force it is today. My point is that, because the past half century or so has seen the rise of a powerful executive does not necessarily mean that this was the intention of the framers. Most of the signatories, or at least the attendees of the constitutional convention were actually quitedubious about the powers of a "chief executive", given exactly the reasons you stated. It took three months of debate to set down the role of the executive. The tripartite model was founded with exactly the opposite notion in mind: with all things being equal and barring extraordinary circumstances (to wit, something such as imminent war), no branch would be more powerful at any given time than the other two. This was the remedy, it their eyes, to having a definitive locus of power. The executive was merely the conductor of the train, not the railroad kingpin, to use a contextually inapt metahpor. ;) Date Added: 04/07/2005
Rusty And even then, a jury of peers can overturn a supreme court ruling by not enforcing the ruling in court. Makes the whole system pretty volatile. Then again, people are generally able to get out of trouble anyway if they can conjure up enough cash. Prosecutors are hardly ever as adept as defense attorneys. Innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff...Don't really know why I went into all of that. Brits confuse me sometimes too, so it isn't exclusive for all you 'foreigners' to be confused by the way other people do things. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Rusty There were also reasons to end the electoral process. It would have been disasterous if we would have had vacancies in the cabinet, or a lame executive because time would have been scarce around inauguration time. Either way the Supreme Court ran that one, people would have been mad. Was probably a good idea to give it to the conservatives, they have the NRA and christian zealotry on their side. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away Hmmm, you sure about the recent increase in the power of the chief executive, Josh. According to all I've read about the Civil War, it was often only Lincoln's determination that kept the North plugging away in spite of horrendous casualties. FDR too seems to have had just as much power as any of the more recent presidents. Admittedly he often had to pull the wool over everyone's eyes to achieve what he wanted... Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away Oh, I know how confusing the British system (if you can call it that - it's really the result of 1,500 years of gradual evolution) must appear to outsiders, Rusty. There is no written constitution, for example, and it is necessary to study all sorts of ancient documents like the magna carta to arrive at some sort of idea of how it all fits together. Much of the law is not written in statutes as well and many cases are decided by precedent, lawyers digging into past decisions by the courts to give validity to their way of seeing the present case. We would say that this allows the law to evolve with the society. My one experience of being employed in this area was in Zimbabwe, where the system was Roman Dutch Law (historical reasons - it's a long story) and that is all written down so that everyone knows where they stand (in theory). The net result is that the British preference for law by precedent often seems weird to me too but I can usually see the advantages of both approaches. I do think that it's better to at least attempt to keep politics out of legal interpretation however. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Josh Yep, I am fairly certain of this. :P As I said, the executive has powers were never invisioned to be so broad, and the legislative branch was given an absolute check on even executive orders, though it requires first a bill to override, a veto of that bill by the president, and then a two-thirds majority to finally block the president's order. The two examples you mentioned are notable for the context in which they occured; Lincoln, a war-time president going so far as to suspend habeas corpus in a desperate effort to hold the country together in time of war, and Roosevelt, initially expending nearly every chunk of capital, fungible or otherwise, to keep average citizens from starving to death for lack of the basic necessities. And then the whole war thing. ;) The presidency of fellers like Buchanan, Harding, and even Grant, (I think those are three suckers) go farther to explain the idea of a tempered or even weak executive. As far as I remember from my reading, it was WW1 and Wilson that began the balooning of the federal goverment (and its associated apparatus), which effectively constrained the ability of congress to manage fiscal oversight of this vast bureacracy, legislative imperatives, and checking the executive. The great depression, of course, only made it worse, and taking the cue from FDR, subsequent presidents have seen fit to expand presidental powers. Nope. it was not always thus. :P Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away Fairy Nuff, Josh, you're the expert when it comes to this. But I can only write of what I see now, n'est-ce pas? ;) Date Added: 04/07/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) And the Presidency has now developed an hereditary principle. The House of Bush is really creating a dynasty, challenged by the House of Clinton. What's the betting on Jeb vs Hillary in 2008?We too have the separation of powers between the three main institutions. It's just that our Executive is based within the legislature and nominally advises the Monarch. Unhappily, European "laws" have been gumming up the works for three decades, so it doesn't function as easily as it once did. Going back to the original topic, there's a good article in today's (London) Times by William Rees-Mogg about the appointment to the Supreme Court. Worth a look. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away Very good article, John, and putting a point regarding Sandra Day O'Connor that I've not heard before (and a good reason for Bush not nominating another "swing vote" judge as so many seem to be hoping for). Talking of dynasties, have we seen the last of the Kennedy dynasty? Date Added: 04/07/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) Yep, it's getting like the Wars of the Roses over there. Who says history doesn't repeat itself. And when you consider Duke Ellington, Count Basey and all those Pop Princesses, why they've even got an aristocracy! If the US wants a real King maybe they can borrow Prince Harry. I'm sure he'd be at least as successful as George the Third.Yes, Rees-Mogg know what he's talking about. His final point was a real killer : "These decisions did not even have the justification of coherent legal philosophy. It seems to me that this is judicial arrogance of the highest order — as was the original 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade itself. A supreme court has no right, without constitutional authority, to steal the jurisdiction of any other Court or Legislature. A supreme court exists to interpret the law not to invent it." Date Added: 04/07/2005
Gone Away Not to mention all the Earls floating around and the rock star formerly known as Prince... Today is supposed to be a writing day for me but I am devoid of ideas and so going off to have a look at the Quartz Mountains instead. Perhaps they will inspire me. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Josh Steal jurisdiction? Does that mean the appeals process that necessitates a Supreme court in the first place is somehow superfluous? Seems a bit silly to me. Date Added: 04/07/2005
Rusty Think it means that the Supreme Court cannot take a case that falls to the lower courts by default. The Supreme Court is solely an appelate court, and hears no original cases (except certain exclusions, such as States versus States or matters pertaining solely to national jurisdiction.) Date Added: 04/07/2005
keeefer I hope they elect a 'magic 8 ball' just shake it and go with the answer....the 8 ball has spoken. You are dead right Gone, i have no idea how American elections work. It seems to me that two candidates race each other through all 52(?) states in random directions. Anytime they enter the same state they have a televised debate that leaves both candidates looking dimmer than they do on the posters. The winner is, of course, the first one to be sat in the oval office at the whitehouse when the music stops. The newly elected President then announces he's on vacation and we get to see him in a silly hat and waders, scratching his butt while fishing from a dinghy. I love the celebrity trials. What a great concept. Im particularly looking forward to the Russel crow trial....I hope the judge throws the book at him Date Added: 05/07/2005
Josh 50 man. 50 squirrels, twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncles ranch! You know that old childrens tale from the sea! Date Added: 05/07/2005
Ken Phew! I'm glad I came back right at the end of this one. Date Added: 05/07/2005
Gone Away LOL. Welcome back, Ken. Date Added: 06/07/2005
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
