nytimes.com— The court used the case to announce it was overruling the two precedents the Supreme Court had used when it established the “unique circumstances” doctrine in the 1960s.
Jun 18, 2007View in Crawl 4
This is a great ruling. The court is saying that the judiciary is there to interpret the law, not to make new law. If the law is constitutional but unfair (subjective interpretation) then it's up to the legislative branch to fix it.Legislatures(state, federal, local) should be the only one's making and modifying laws, rules, regulations, etc for the rest of us. We have too many unelected unaccountable power hungry officials to allow just anybody to make laws affecting all of us.
Exactly. The Supreme Court is saying enough with judicial activism. The courts have also recently said the overzealous bureaucrats overstepped their authority when it comes to TV obscenity rules, the broadcast flag, non-combatants and EPA rules.This needs to happen more often with the unelected going to jail for exceeding their authority.
written orders of the judge in a specific case always trump the law... always. Even the apeals court agreed and originally accepted the application. It was the State lawyers that appealed the dealine to get the case thrown out.
but they ARE making a new law... worse, they're removing discression from the individual judges... something very dangerous indeed. In this case a JUDGE made the error... it should be up to judges to fix the error... and until this ruling that's how it was delt with. What this will allow is the system to be gamed by opportunistic prosecutors over defendants and their lawyers playing games with the letter of the law over the spirit... this is ten steps backward. This is about the independance of lower courts to correct their obvious mistakes. This plays into what Bush has been doing by seeding laws in Congress with backroom additions... and now they want the courts to blindly enforce those!!! Executives follow the law without discression... Courts are allowed the discression to decide real Right from Wrong and not just the letter of the law.
leomarthJun 19, 2007
It would seem that the ruling is saying that Judges are not accountable for the legal advice, in this case the due date, that they dispense in court.
schwitJun 19, 2007
This is a great ruling. The court is saying that the judiciary is there to interpret the law, not to make new law. If the law is constitutional but unfair (subjective interpretation) then it's up to the legislative branch to fix it.Legislatures(state, federal, local) should be the only one's making and modifying laws, rules, regulations, etc for the rest of us. We have too many unelected unaccountable power hungry officials to allow just anybody to make laws affecting all of us.
thefaithfulJun 19, 2007
Maybe he should pick a lawyer who knows the law well enough and doesn't just blindly listen to whatever the judge happens to say.
schwitJun 19, 2007
Exactly. The Supreme Court is saying enough with judicial activism. The courts have also recently said the overzealous bureaucrats overstepped their authority when it comes to TV obscenity rules, the broadcast flag, non-combatants and EPA rules.This needs to happen more often with the unelected going to jail for exceeding their authority.
mabhatterJun 20, 2007
written orders of the judge in a specific case always trump the law... always. Even the apeals court agreed and originally accepted the application. It was the State lawyers that appealed the dealine to get the case thrown out.
mabhatterJun 20, 2007
but they ARE making a new law... worse, they're removing discression from the individual judges... something very dangerous indeed. In this case a JUDGE made the error... it should be up to judges to fix the error... and until this ruling that's how it was delt with. What this will allow is the system to be gamed by opportunistic prosecutors over defendants and their lawyers playing games with the letter of the law over the spirit... this is ten steps backward. This is about the independance of lower courts to correct their obvious mistakes. This plays into what Bush has been doing by seeding laws in Congress with backroom additions... and now they want the courts to blindly enforce those!!! Executives follow the law without discression... Courts are allowed the discression to decide real Right from Wrong and not just the letter of the law.