What is the difference between a judge ruling against something that is in the constitution, and legislating from the bench?
The difference is that legislating from the bench got us Abortion on demand. the people calling for judges that would rule "morally" is exactly what started this mess in the first place. the lefties thought it was "moral" to kill the unborn if it inconvienenced the Mother. Now the same people that devried this standard are calling on Bush to name judges and AG's that will flush the constitution. For Years we have been trying to get constitutionalist judges on the bench. We know there is no right to an Abortion in the constitution. Yet some of the comments here are making me think some of us have lost our way.
tame: of COURSE. a judge ruling against ANY unconstitutional ruling is acting correctly. Now the appeals courts, SCOTUS, etc., won't let him have his way.
But that hardly abrogates HIS responsibility to do what is correct, and it hardly means HE's the one who is wrong.
stuartcr: I disagree. Please show me where that is spelled out in the Constitution, etc.?
My point was simply that a judge has a responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution correctly in his rulings, regardless of what other judges may do.
You then wrote that you disagree!
Are you actually arguing that he should NOT?!? Please show me where THAT is spelled out in the Constitution.
The burden of proof rests with you to show that a judge SHOULD MISinterpret the constitution. a Peculiar position, to say the least.