Comments on: Epiphany http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/02/epiphany/ a law student blog written by students at the catholic university of america, columbus school of law ::fighting the hypo, so you don't have to:: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:59:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Dr. Bombay http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/02/epiphany/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Dr. Bombay Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:09:26 +0000 http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/02/epiphany/#comment-118 It’s funny, because I feel two ways about it. On one hand, I find the notion of judges who are not beholden to the political process interpreting the law to be a comforting one. If the Federal Bench looked the House of Representatives, I’d move to Canada. Can you imagine the chaos? Interpreting law in one way in an election year to attempt to curry favor with the electorate, in accordance with principle or best legal scholarship thereafter? It would be a disaster. On the other hand, the notion of a class of Mandarins making decisions in a vacuum ticks me off. Especially when you find them using expansive interpretations to do things the legislator never intended (Kelo) or applying a strict interpretation to chop out legislation they don’t like (Medtronic). What really creeps me out however is that they have – for all purposes – become elected. Depending on which party you vote for, you know with reasonable certainty what kind of judges they are going to appoint, and what their judicial philosophy is going to result in. It’s funny, because I feel two ways about it. On one hand, I find the notion of judges who are not beholden to the political process interpreting the law to be a comforting one. If the Federal Bench looked the House of Representatives, I’d move to Canada. Can you imagine the chaos? Interpreting law in one way in an election year to attempt to curry favor with the electorate, in accordance with principle or best legal scholarship thereafter? It would be a disaster.

On the other hand, the notion of a class of Mandarins making decisions in a vacuum ticks me off. Especially when you find them using expansive interpretations to do things the legislator never intended (Kelo) or applying a strict interpretation to chop out legislation they don’t like (Medtronic).

What really creeps me out however is that they have – for all purposes – become elected. Depending on which party you vote for, you know with reasonable certainty what kind of judges they are going to appoint, and what their judicial philosophy is going to result in.

]]> By: Mojo http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/02/epiphany/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Mojo Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:24:18 +0000 http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/02/epiphany/#comment-116 I think you could have kept going with this line of thought, my good doctor....how about weighing in with your two cents as to which types of judges do you prefer? Are they both equally as bad? Do we really want judges who, at least in terms of federal judges, were never elected and have life tenure (the double whammy of no accountability) setting public policy in what we claim to be a default majority? Abortion is a perfect example....i think most of our generation agrees that a woman should have the right to make such a decision herself....but does that make Roe and Casey correct? Remember, the issue there was not whether abortion should be legal or not...the issue was essentially whether we should leave the decision to the public or to 9 unelected government employees and what about Kelo? That was 5-4, right? Was that rightly decided? Who dissented in that case anyways.... I think you could have kept going with this line of thought, my good doctor….how about weighing in with your two cents as to which types of judges do you prefer? Are they both equally as bad? Do we really want judges who, at least in terms of federal judges, were never elected and have life tenure (the double whammy of no accountability) setting public policy in what we claim to be a default majority?

Abortion is a perfect example….i think most of our generation agrees that a woman should have the right to make such a decision herself….but does that make Roe and Casey correct? Remember, the issue there was not whether abortion should be legal or not…the issue was essentially whether we should leave the decision to the public or to 9 unelected government employees

and what about Kelo? That was 5-4, right? Was that rightly decided? Who dissented in that case anyways….

]]>