Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; forester; marsh2; tubebender; Grampa Dave; NormsRevenge
Since I pointed out that two of the three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel were Republican appointed judges, maybe the underlying problem is neither the judges or the court.

Could the problem be the two judges based their decision on the law? Is this an instance where the court should not be maligned, but the legislative bodies that wrote and passed the law?

The court is the most obvious target of wrath over this case, but one must consider the judges, especially conservative judges, do not base their decisions on a whim, but written law.

What good will it serve to have the most conservative of presidents elected in 2008 to appoint judges, if Congress continues passing laws that bring harm to the nation?

I hope future posts concerning the 9th Circuit Court remind people that judges are expected to apply the law as written, and if doing so brings an unpopular decision, maybe ... JUST MAYBE, the real problem is not the court, but the written law. If this be the case, the rational approach to correcting the situation is not leveling the ire of people against the court. The rational approach is to seek a more responsible Congress that writes the laws the judges are to apply.

It’s too easy to malign the 9th Circuit Court. In this instance the court is the messenger, and the message the court delivered was given it by Congress. Shooting the messenger will not alter the message an iota.

It may serve the political purpose of some to bring attention to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but IF the problem is the law itself, such attention misdirects anger, and almost certainly assures the people deserving of scorn are not held accountable.

18 posted on 12/07/2007 10:28:39 AM PST by backtothestreets (My bologna has a first name, it's J-O-R-G-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: backtothestreets
NEPA may be explicit, but when its prescriptions demonstrably violate its stated purpose, and when there are provisions for exceptions such as the Bush Administration has taken, then the question becomes one of how the law is applied, not whether one can cite provisions that support one's position.

In this instance, the application is an administrative function, in which the court has no business in the first place UNLESS it is demonstrated that the consequences have been systematically reckless, which they have not.

20 posted on 12/07/2007 11:18:01 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson