Replies

That was exactly my point about the 6th Amendment--as I stated earlier, it clearly does NOT allow for appointed counsel. But yet this is now an unquestionable right in our society.

Do you really think that we should have a society in which the poor are left to fend for themselves in the judicial arena? Seeing as you said that it is a nice social policy, I would think the answer to that question is no. The result is that the 6th Amendment is expanded, as it should be.

To answer your question, I'm not really bothered by any recent "invention" of rights. See my discussion on the 9th Amendment. There may be a judicial decision that I don't like, but I'm never really concerned with a judiciary that jealously guards the liberties of the citizenry, as any "activist" court necessarily does.

"That was exactly my point about the 6th Amendment--as I stated earlier, it clearly does NOT allow for appointed counsel. But yet this is now an unquestionable right in our society."

Excuse me, it's *not* an "unquestioned" right - that's arrogant - as I for one am questioning it! It's a "right" that does not exist legally in the constitution. Re-interpreting the Constitution doesnt really change that.

"Do you really think that we should have a society in which the poor are left to fend for themselves in the judicial arena?"

It's good policy, but I find it no more of an important thing or good thing than for the poor to be fed in times of need. In BOTH cases, this is public policy, and our Democratic process has a way to address such things. This "feel good" thinking has led to many excessive acts of judicial over-reach where judges have eg forced taxes (violating separation of powers, Kansas City desegregation cases). Just simply because you would find it wrong for hungry to be left unfed you cant go around falsely claiming it as a constitutional right.

The ends dont justify the means.

"Seeing as you said that it is a nice social policy, I would think the answer to that question is no. The result is that the 6th Amendment is expanded, as it should be."
To answer your question, I'm not really bothered by any recent "invention" of rights."

Well, that IMHO is sad ... you've just rewritten the Constitution from what it *is*, to what you think it *should* be. it's the "Tempting of America" that Justice Bork talked about, and it leads, as he showed, to many ill effects.

The 6th Amendment has not been expanded at all.
You've merely crossed the line from correct interpretation to fanciful interpretation. It SHOULD bother you ALOT to see this happen because constructing public policy via Judicial fiat means the end of Rule of Law. What is to stop the next Justice to "invent" a "right" of "socialized medicine", a "right" to "public nudity", a "right" of "aggreived groups to act violently" even? Nothing! The law is what a judge says it is, suddenly, nothing more nothing less. It has no end. Rule of Law is dead. Democracy is Dead. That is no victory, that is a disaster!

" See my discussion on the 9th Amendment. There may be a judicial decision that I don't like, but I'm never really concerned with a judiciary that jealously guards the liberties of the citizenry, ..."

IMHO, this Judicial ruling violates the rights of Judge Moore to express his views and excercise his rights. This ruling violates ALL OUR RIGHTS. You have blinders on if you think judicial activism is about 'expanding rights' - more rights have been *lost* from judicial activism, far more, than have been gained. Likewise, a ruling forbidding the protection of the unborn for the sake of "right to abortion" violates the rights of the unborn. This is like Dred Scott. There are two sides to each coin, and the loss is always much greater than the gain when the Judicial system oversteps its bounds.

And the terrrible thing about it is, these mistakes - unlike the mistakes made in public policy via the democratic process - are not easily reversible. Judicial imperialism and Judicial activism are forms of TYRANNY and are *very dangerous* and quite damaging to our legal, social and political system.