Judicial Tyranny

Stand To Reason ^ | 2003 | Gregory Koukl

[gogeo]

I.e. should we put a 7 year old girl in jail for operating a lemonde stand without a license and in contravention of the public health laws of the state? Strict application of the law requires this. The normal standards of justice of anyone who is not cruel or mentally deficient requires something else. Starting with a false dichotomy, going blindly down the road of law and eschewig justice at every turning, this article is not worth the time to read it.

Wrong...it's short sighted law making. Change the law.

[gogeo]

"Thus, the Justices must use their judgment as to the constitutional intent of the framers, when they make decisions based on these unlisted rights, such as our right to privacy."

I have to confess I'm wondering about these "unlisted rights" also...the constitution and Bill of Rights are not about "unlisted rights," but limitation of the power of government.

[AndyJackson]

Wrong...it's short sighted law making. Change the law.

Meanwhile said 7 year old is to languish in a juvenile detention center awaiting legislative action? Don't be absurd.

Should we have no laws restricing commers? If not, does that mean that loan sharking is ok? Or should we allow some? What should the law state? "except for 7 year old girls selling lemonade." What about 8 year old boys? what about an operator who sets up a chain of lemonade stands run by seven year old girls. Do the girl's have to be cute? Can they sell orange juice? Suppose it they have $2000 in capital equipment provided by dad. Does that turn it from an educational exercise of a child to a commercial activity that should be regulated. Suppose the lemons are picked with nonunion labor from a backyard tree?

The trouble is that you cannot write a law to cover every conceivable situation. So, instead, you have judges.

[gogeo]

Meanwhile said 7 year old is to languish in a juvenile detention center awaiting legislative action? Don't be absurd. Should we have no laws restricing commers? If not, does that mean that loan sharking is ok? Or should we allow some? What should the law state? "except for 7 year old girls selling lemonade." What about 8 year old boys? what about an operator who sets up a chain of lemonade stands run by seven year old girls. Do the girl's have to be cute? Can they sell orange juice? Suppose it they have $2000 in capital equipment provided by dad. Does that turn it from an educational exercise of a child to a commercial activity that should be regulated. Suppose the lemons are picked with nonunion labor from a backyard tree?

That really is a straw man argument...restaranters aren't jailed for health code violations, and unlicensed venders outside Safeco Field (for example) are told to cease and desist. Sorry, but your child behind bars picture won't happen.

That's the whole point behind the process of legislation, to review all the "what if" scenarios involved. Legislatures are suited for this; judges aren't.

You're missing the bigger picture, which was aired repeatedly on this thread; if stupid laws are made, legislators are accountable. If stupid judgments are made, there is no accountability. That is why it's so crucial to limit the power and scope of judges.

[MissAmericanPie]

States rights do not violate all our other rights, rather the Fed seems to do a bang up job of doing just that.

[AndyJackson]

That's the whole point behind the process of legislation, to review all the "what if" scenarios involved. Legislatures are suited for this; judges aren't

You don't hang with your local legislature much do ya?