Should the United States eliminate the concept of Judicial Review? Is it good that a judge or judges can overturn the decision(s) of a majority of the American people?
I think that it is okay. Sometimes the majority is wrong, sometimes it's right, but in the end America was founded on the ideals of freedom and equality. ( I am going somewhere with this) This gave weight to the movement for black rights, and woman's rights. Did the majority support these? no, but they went along with the basic ideals of America!
So take the issues of today, Gay Marriage abortion. I would say I am against gay marriage, along with what I believe to be a slight majority. I think the country should be for it, though. It sounds like I'm waffling but I can back up what I believe. I think that when the majority goes against the ideals of this country it is important that there is a power to overturn it. If the majority can't stand it, then shouldn't they find a new place to live.
I would rather disagree with a policy in America then live in a country that acts hypocritically.
It might be good in times when the American people can be easily swayed by the political parties. Most of the time, however, it would be a better if the American citizens made the decision themselves. Most voters should be able to make an informed decision on their own.
If a single judge or group of judges overturned a decision made by millions of Americans, it could lead to unrest. Most of the time the judge would back the political party that appointed them, even if it meant going against what the public wanted.
Overall, it would be better if a choice made by the American people was passed instead of it being rejected by a small group of judges.
Honestly I feel that the concept of judicial review should be eliminated and that an important decision should not be made up to a judge or judges but up to the majority. Reasons why I think this is how can a judge have so much power that he can overturn a decision made by millions of Americans. It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go.
I would go either way on this one. I think that judicial review should be eliminated, because having judges being able to decide on something that effects the entire nation and can decide against the general population on what they vote, does not seem like something that should be kept. However, I also agree with the idea of having it. The majority of America can become so corrupt by the stories on the news, or what they read in the paper, and that in some cases is only the half of it. So if many American citizens only see the little picture, or choose to vote for/against something, only because of their personal reasons and experiences, do they all take the time to think about the big picture?
I believe it is okay, because a majority of the time, the majority is not right. Take for example slavery. A vast majority of the people in the 1700s wanted slavery, and thought it to be the right decision to continue enslaving Africans. We all know this was horribly wrong. And therefore, just because more people go one way doesn't justify that their way should be followed by an entire country.
Also, take in to account issues today such as abortion and gay marriage. Just because the majority of Americans are mainly against these issues, does not mean that they are right. I mean I thought America was the land of oppurtunity? Giving people the chance to live a happy life? And if these women who want the choice of abortion, and these Americans who love another human being regardless of their sex are going to be deprived of that happiness and the freedom to choose for themselves, then isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Now I'm not saying these judges are always right in their decision making, but they are part of the government who wants this country to succeed. And if that means overturning decisions made by the majority of Americans in order to keep the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness alive, then I believe Judicial Review is an imortant part of our government.
Well, judicial decisions are all fine and dandy in a world where the American revolution happened, but in a idealized situation where the British Crown still ruled supreme over this north American continent, such republican ideas of a "three branch" system would be severely frowned upon, by not only his royal Majesty in Windsor, but every loyal British citizen from London to Boston. And as such the petty idea of Judicial Review, could be throw aside and more important matters attended to. Like what type of tea is better (Earl Grey).
In response to Brandon, "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go".
I see your point with this. But maybe you should consider that most people chose what they think is best for them, or what they believe is okay based on personal experiences. Some people in this country are very closed minded and do not think about others, or even what is best for the country as a whole, only themselves. A majority of the people only view America as THEIR country, not the idea of the country belonging to all Americans. And if all of these people can over rule a government who wants the country of millions to succeed, is that such a great idea? Letting people who can be biased, and selfish on issues decide the final result only because there is a larger number in this group than the one who really considers and thinks about the principles of America such as freedom?
On the topic of judicial review, i could go both ways (no homo) but i choose to go against it.Overall i think that it should be removed, because one judge should not be able to overturn the decision of many Americans (as everybody already said). How does "power to the people" come into play if that one judge is over ruling the want and need of the people of this country. That quote should rather be "power to one judge" because thats basically what it is.
I believe that issues should be able to become overturn by judges. First you have got to ask yourself is the argument right or is it wrong? Sometimes you just can't be in the middle. Then you’d have to ask yourself is this what we really stand for? And what kind of liberty did our founding fathers really want for us? I mean liberty is what our country is about, or so they say .Is this (Our liberty now) the kind of liberty that our founding brothers intended us to have. Or have we made it into a play dough mold that well fits our minds? For example the issue of abortion. (I Don't mean to offend anyone who doesn't agree) but I won't apologize for what I believe. People think they can go around and not pay for their consequences. Look if your going to go out and have sex with a guy and you get pregnant then that was your decision, I’m sure you knew there was a chance of it happening, and you took it and you have to be responsible for that. I’m against abortion. If you want to get an abortion you got to remember that is a human being. From the moment your pregnant you have got a precious creature growing inside of you. Sure you might not think so, but you are stealing the life of a human being. Could someone possibly live peacefully with a conscience like that? I mean I understand that times change, but usually if something is wrong today, it would have probably been wrong back in Washington’s time. Then you have to ask yourself if it wasn't right then , why should it b right now? Just because we change it doesn't mean that are morals should. I just think that it's not right. Its understandable that people will always, for the most part disagree on something. And another example is gay marriage FIRMLY BELIEVE that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s just my opinion. I built my house on a rock, and with Gods grace on a rock it shall stay. I believe our country was based off Christian morals, and they should remain that way. Even though we did some crummy things that we aren’t exactly proud of such as slavery, we should still stick with them. Like kohl said most of the time, the majority is wrong. So with that being said, I believe that they should be allowed to overturn a decision. And if it’s a good decision that they pass, then good, and if it's not, then boy does that suck for whoever disagrees! Because its going to be something that we are going to have to life with. I just don't want to get lost in this fast changing world. A nation only reflects the choices of individuals. And it’s so true. Maybe we aren’t as free as we thought we were?
(i just changed my name..formerly:nam11) but anyways, on this issue i actually agree with b.knight22. He shares the same viewpoint as i do, saying that "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go". I believe that if the majority of the people want the same thing, it should be given to them. Whether or not it is right, that is up to the people because they control the the rise or decline of this country and their decisions would result in one of those.
i think its wrong. Like cole says, the country was founded on freedom ideals. But in a country founded on the will of the people have all descions made for them by a group of the people?
I dont think a small group has a right to decide for us what is right for this country.
I think change can happen on its own. Civil rights didnt happen because the judicial branch backed it, it started because because some stood up for what they believed in. Its not the courts doing. Even if the majority believes one thing, it does mean that its set in stone that people will always believe that. THings like that can change over time. two hundreds years ago blacks were though of as less than human, and slowly people began to realize that was wrong, odds are that will happen again.
I think its because of the people that change should happen, and the courts shouldnt have the power to decide against what the people.
As said before by Kohl, the concept of Judicial Review was very important to vote on many complicated cases that the people could not decide on themselves. However, many things have changed over the years.
While I do think there are people capable of deciding on issues properly, most appear not to be. This is why this concept is still very good. However, it definitely needs some work.
While I do not think it should be eliminated, there are many problems with this system of doing things:
1) Important issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. never get through. 2) Only 5 people can overrule everyone elses' opinion. 3) They are given a lot of power with very little to stop it.
And this is why they need to be more involved within the checks and balances system. With only the president to choose them, who can remove them if the public sees fit? If this cannot be solved, how do these issues ever get dealt with? They don't.
At least not until everyone is able to agree. Oh, nevermind. If 5 out of 9 people can agree.
Despite all of this, it is still a very good concept and a great place holder in case anyone is able to make a far better system in the future.
first i agree with kohl's comments on the majority rule of America going against the prime ideals and reasons this country was founded for in the first place. i do like his conclusions drawn from the movement of black rights of how the majority was truly against it but it would be "unconstitutional" to not grant these people the same freedom and equality that America's Constitution does offer.
Yes i can see how sometimes the majority of American's "don't know what's in their best interest" but this can not be the reason that an individual's voice must not be heard. what i'm saying is that the idea of judicial review clearly deprives individual citizens (or the majority) of their rights and abilities to make decisions for themselves! if the american people are willing to give a their own rights to decide for them, then why not give ALL YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN a single body that will make decisions for us! YEAH!!! that sound alot like communism! everybody shout yeah for communists!!
my point is that if we americans allow a judicary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck, why not give government all of the power we have and give up our american rights. if we falter and surrender ANY ONE of our important freedoms or rights, then ALL THE REST will be taken from us in a heartbeat.
i feel it is our right and duty as americans to stand up and say no when we disagree with something or we want our voice to be heard! that's something that should never be denied of any human being
I find that Judicial Review is imporant to our country, because like "kohl dulas" said somrtimes the majority IS wrong. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed becuase they should be "fair" and unbiased. SOmetimes this is not the case, but the president appoints who they think is best for the job. I think that major decisions like abortion and gay marriage should be handeled by the most cabale IE the Supreme Court
In response to Brandon, "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go".
Not to Waffle but yes SOMETIMES the people need to have this power but if their decision is inhumane to the other free americans in their country thats when Judicial Review Needs to step in and change it. Who is to say what love and marriage is? If two are in love then let them get married, times are changeing and we as a country need to adapt, we are so used to going through the motions and a change is needed. The Declaration Clearly states that "all men are created equal" & "Life liberty and persuit of Happiness". The Supreme court should have this in mind when they make their decisions. Even if it goes against the decision of the Majority
I think that judicial review is headed in the right direction and so far has worked well for this country in many aspects. Just like Sarah said if it wasn't for this system we would most likely still have slavery.
Just because the majority agrees on an issue does not make it right. I think we are lucky to have this system, because without it government would be going around in circles trying to please everyone and important decisions would never be finalized. Judicial review is kind of like America's conscience, especially when it comes to touchy moral issues like everyone has mentioned.
What it comes down to is that issues such as gay marriage and abortion are moral issues and i believe that the Supreme Court is walking on thin ice when it comes to both. I really couldn't say which side the majority lies on, but i believe it is the executive branches job to not necessarily pacify everyone but make a decision based on right and wrong.
Everyone talks about freedom to express yourself and live your own life, but on the topic of abortion murder is a crime, why is an unborn life the exception? That is where judicial review needs to decide what is Consitutional to overlook and make an exception for because Americans will never fully agree.
In response to Sarah: I fully understand where your coming from but the majority of people today in America would agree on what is right and wrong. Those people from 200 years ago of course would have backed up slavery because they were simple-minded and ignorant. Also the majority would vote against gay marriage because its the right decision. Marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women because it says so in the bible.
I agree with DMaggio, we cannot have a small group of people controlling what is best for the nation. If we let them do this, why don't we just surrender our rights to them right now, and throw away everything the founding fathers struggled to achieve?
Change has to come from the people, and it is because of the people change is brought about in the first place. No one's future is etched in stone, not even this nation's. The people must decide the fate of their country, and if wrong choices are made, they can be changed to the will of the people.
If what we want can be turned away from us, then what did we all fight for? Why should we give up our most precious gift, if it was the whole reason we are here today? Having Judicial Review is like taking away people's freedom to choose their future, which in the end violates everything that this nation stands for.
P.S. I apologize to everyone who may find this post a tad redundant(it just flows from my fingers).
I am completley for judicial review. The so called "majority" may vote for a certain issue such as gay marraige, but what gives this "majority" the right to choose how others live. The judicial review allows educated people to truely decide if a sometimes irrational descision created by angry fundamentalists is indeed constitutional. Honostly if we cant except gays for who they are and who they want to be it clearly goes against the so called freedoms that America is based around. Another issue being brought up is abortion. A women should be alowed to choose what is done to her own body. Simple as that. There are some people who may not be ready for the extreme responsibility that comes with raising a child. Angry mothers should not be able to say that it is wrong or right, the court should.
This is the complete opposite of what I believe. If America becomes a nation that bases its laws and morals around the christian religion, than we would have no freedoms and become a theocracy. I would be sickened if all our laws were pulled out of the bible. America is great because I am alowed to be an atheist, have rights, and not have to be a part of a church. If the American government took away religious freedom than it would go against one of the primary values it was founded on, and I would move back to Canada...
I think a small group of judges having the ability to overturn laws is wrong!
Usually things get done here by a majority of people backing it up, and that makes sense. If more than half the people are voting on a law, why should just 7, 8, or 9 judges have the power to say no to it?
Ever since I can remember everything from elementary school to sport teams has always been "majority rules." There are always some people that aren't going to be happy, but we can't please everyone because we're all different. There will always be a minority, but why should they be favored all the time? Why would a minority of judges be able to make the choices of thousands or millions of people? For example, the diversity of schooling we talked about in class; the government favors the minority. Maybe because they are also a minority? I mean there are all these people who work so hard in school, study their butts off, and get moved back on an acceptance list just because another person is Asian, Mexican, or something like that. (I'm not trying to be racist!! Don't get mad, just using exmples! & I know this is a little of subject but I think I have apoint!) I understand there is not the same quality of education everywhere in this country, believe me. But maybe the government should focus on controlling that so everyone has the chance to get the same opportunities! If we did that, there would be less minorities here.
I also get how what people want is not always right, or maybe selfish, like that saying "What is popular is not always right, but what is right is not always popular." But like I said, no matter what happens not every sigle person will be completely 100% happy. Therefore, shouldn't we make the majority of people satisfied instead?
I believe that a judge or judges should be able to overturn the majority of America. Let's face it, the majority of the American people don't have the depth of knowledge of the Constitution to choose what is particulary good for the rest of America. For example, the majority of America believed in pro-slavery, and if it wasn't for Judicial Review, then who knows where we'd be. Some think the Court's decisions are not always in the best interests of the people, but is it really supposed to be in every specific person's best interest? No, it is supposed to be in the best interest of America as a whole and its adherence to the principles of the Constitution.
Thank you Andrew Melnik, very very well said. I could'n't agree with you more. Bravo.
And responding to Brandon again, I don't want to argue about the gay marriage issue, but you said something about that it was wrong because it "says so in the Bible". Similar to Andrew, I have to say that our government is not a theocracy. It is a seperation of church and state. The Bible should not be brought into the courts, or any branch of government.
Also, you said people back then were simple-minded and ignorant, which I believe is still true today and not just in the past. Like I said before, a majority of Americans today are selfish and only think of themselves when it comes to politics, not the country as a whole. Many are closed minded and will not accept that times have changed and that it is necessary to take on new perspectives and embrace new ideals in order for the country to evolve and succeed in the future.
I think that Judicial Revew is a good thing. Many times citizens in the U.S. get rialed up about certain subjects and are persuaded to vote for things even when they don't know what they are voting for. A lot of people who vote are not informed voters. The judges who have the power of judicial review are always informed and know both sides of the arguements. This helps them to make informed decisions about what is truly best for our country.
nam11, i understand perfectly where you are coming from. Judicial Review may cause people to feel as if their votes don't really count so there is no reason in voting. But, you have to remember that many people who do vote only consider one side of the arguement and go with that.
"I believe our country was based off Christian morals, and they should remain that way. Even though we did some crummy things that we aren’t exactly proud of such as slavery, we should still stick with them."
"Marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women because it says so in the bible."
"my point is that if we americans allow a judicary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck..."
First off, I want to address these quotes with the quote of another man whom we all should be familiar. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
The passing of these laws would do EXACTLY the opposite of that, and immediately make the United States a Christian, or to say the least, religious nation. I would challenge anyone to find any evidence against gay marriage other than the "Bible says so". The truth is there is no evidence of any crimes committed by people who consider themselves homosexual any more than that of a heterosexual person. All of the supposedly important moral issues are merely inside one major issue that seems to be glanced over by everyone, and is considered "untouchable" the nation over. Think about every death that has been caused over religious differences, and you cannot even begin to estimate the number; you cannot even fathom it. Now I am not trying to push beliefs in one way or another but am merely saying to look at the physical evidence. Look at the fact that every single member of that Supreme Court has their opinions automatically biased by being a member of a specific church or another.
I am not sure if I am missing anything here, but the fact that a country supposedly founded on liberty, seems to have one automatic bias that almost every governmental member follows, doesn't sound very "free" to me.
It is true that the majority is often wrong, but we must all look into why this is. Why do literally billions of Americans all believe that one idea or lifestyle is considered so immoral? The answer, I believe, is misinformation. Instead of actually learning about any of these issues we automatically let our emotional side get in the way and make what we believe automatically take control of what we question or think.
Giving nine (corruptible, both politically and non) men the ability to change the way I live my life or what I am able to say or believe does not seem like freedom to me, and I question if it does to anyone else.
If we all just thought about these issues for a moment without swaying to one side or the other we might actually make progress, I believe. I am going to now attempt to speak as rationally as I can, and refrain mixing morals or ethics in for the purpose of example, so don't take it as anything more than it is. An unborn fetus does not have the ability to retain thought or consciously use cognitive function. A housefly, on the other hand, has a developed brain, a nervous system, feels emotions, and is just as alive as any human, though we don't think for a second about swatting a fly or killing a cockroach. Natural selection has shown that life is dangerous, and the odds are against survival a vast amount of the time. Instead of fighting over these petty grievances we should be working towards uniting what we do have, helping our fellow men and women the best we possibly can, and allowing everyone the freedom they deserve without having to unnecessarily antagonize over others based on their views.
I hope I didn't offend anyone or try to make it seem as though I think a certain way about certain views; that was not my intention. I am simply saying we should question everything, as Aristotle told us, and we should look for ways to solve these problems in ways other than ignoring them and passing on the responsibility of decision making by saying we are mostly "ignorant".
I think that judicial review is the STUPIDEST idea in the world. Why should 9 all mighty men and women tell AMERICA whats wrong and right? Important decisions should always be made by the people, if it turns out that majority got it wrong then they just go back and fix it that why they invented amendments. Its easy to play monday morning quaterback on the issue of slavery because we know alot more today then in olden times.
I think that it is wrong. It doesnt seem fair at all to let only a few people control the decisions of so many thousands of people. Even though it has proved to be effective a few times, such as abolishing slavery, I think it should be removed.
I understand what you're saying m-squared, but i still have to disagree. When you're talking about how in elementary school and sports it's always majority rules that's all well and good, but the thing is this isn't elementary school. This is our government and very important issues that can change our country as a whole. It's true that in both cases there are going to be unhappy people, but with having Judicial Rule, justices are trying to create a happier and more stable country.
Also, you're making it sound like they always side with the minority, which is false. True, the Court does side with the minority, but they also side with the majority, which makes it different than Affirmative Action which is trying to create diversity. Like Sarah said too, this is the land of opportunity; everyone has the opportunity to get a great education, and it's not like people who work their butts off aren't going to get into a great college. You don't apply at one place, so if you aren't accepted somewhere, more often than not you're going to be accepted somewhere else.
I don't think that judicial review is all that bad, but it does stink to be a citizen who thinks that they have the priveledge to vote when the real decision lies in a judge. I think it is better than majority rule since the judges who are making the decisions have more insight and understanding of our government than most people do. Overall, I think that it should be allowed since it has worked in the past and it allows the judge to make the right decision when the majority is wrong. I agree with Sarah because she explains that we may still have slavery, but since it was stopped by the responsible leaders of our country, we were finally able to be rid of it. By allowing the citizens vote through majority rule, then we would have laws with immoral values such as gay marriages and abortions which are stated in the Bible as wrong and wicked. And from what I remember the Declaration and our dollar bil still says, "In God We Trust" which makes it important to continue to keep our virtues.
I agree with nam11 about how were supposed to have the 'power to the people' but that its only given to a few judges. It makes it seem like the people hardly have a say in it because no matter what they say it can be changed by just a few judges who may or may not happen to have the same morals, opinions, and standards as you do.
i believe that judicial review is definately a good thing. You have to keep in mind that the government is actually trying to do what is best and right for us. this includes sticking to the constitution. Look at it this way, if there was noone to make sure that we were staying to it we would be living in a completely different society. If D.C. did not have the ability to overturn cases, this could turn a good, hardworking man or woman from one state into a criminal soewhere else.
in response to curtisb:
"I dont think a small group has a right to decide for us what is right for this country."
I mean this with the upmost respect, but this is basically saying that you would rather have an even smaller group of people (state government) tell you what's right and what's wrong. this could also lead to states speaking out against decisions made in other states, which could lead to internal conflicts, and potentially another civil war.
"but this is basically saying that you would rather have an even smaller group of people (state government) tell you what's right and what's wrong."
The state goverment at least can be swayed by the will of the people. Its better than lettin a small group thats not influenced by the will of the people making our descions.
In all honesty this reminds me of the colonist during the revoloution who complained about represantation in parliment. No matter what the people say, judicaial review gives the courts the power to say what they want stands as a law.
okay, i get what you mean big o. but im pretty stubborn and i still think its wrong to have a group of about 9 people making and breaking laws that thousands of people wanted. we are also a country that wants everyone to have the ability to pursue happiness..and i think if the people decide what they want they will be happier.
to samein- i understand where you are coming from, i was raised with christian morals as well. & i agree america was based on those christian morals, but we are also a country that has freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of MANY other things! so what about the girls that get raped and get pregnant? would you want to live with that baby? and if a gay couple got married, what would they do to bother you? if they're in love, shouldn't that be all that matters! think about those things too. if government decided against both those issuses, they would be ceasing gay couples right to be in love and their own pursuit of happiness. if they stopped abortion, there would be SO MANY children with unstable homes, and that to me is just as bad.
I agree with what josh said. A small group of people, no matter how educated or informed on the subject, should have a decision on what the millions of Americans voted on.
Even if a decision that the public voted on was a poorly made one, they could bring the bill or amendment up at the next time of voting, and the public could fix it then, but a group of judges should definitely not have a say on what the public comes to a decision on.
I don't think that judges should be able to decide on what is right or wrong. If people have something that they stongly believe in, why not let them decide? A group of judges shouldn't be allowed to decide certain things. What is so absoutely important about these specific people to let them choose what rights people shuld have? I believe that if the American people want to make decisions you should let them make them whether you agree or disagree.
I do see where many of these people are coming from with their decision to lean towards letting the judges decide but take into consideration the fact of them being biased. Like many peole have brought into their arguments the topic of gay marriage an abortion. It's in human nature to be stereotypical and or prejudice in one way or the other. It's not always bad but what if a bill for gay marriage were to come up and there were 5 judges who highly disagreed with it? Do you think that that is fair to the people who worked so hard on trying to get their bill passed? No, and that is why I think it should be left up to the people.
In response to colin, I think it is both valid and invalid to use arguments like "the bible says so" For two reasons, the first being that we are a country of faith. Not christian faith so much as faith in general. Such as christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish. So in that sense I believe that to uphold values of this country arguments based on the bile shouldn't stand up. Does this mean, however, that we should stop counting someone's view on something simply because it is inspired by their faith? Absolutely not! So to be honest, I am against Gay marriage, why? because the bible says it's wrong. So does this mean my view instantly becomes invalid all together? I see it this way. If you believe in the bible, It dictates how you should act. I assume other religious scriptures do similarly. So they set up a moral foundation in the household based on scripture. So The argument "Th bible says so" Or "The tora says so" or "The kuran says so" Take on a whole new value, because The bible might say so, but because of how it has shaped and crafted my beliefs now I say so.
Sorry about that that is my personal debate with colin.
I agree with maggio, to quote
"...judiciary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck, why not give government all of the power we have and give up our american rights."
I would like to add that I believe we need a bigger, better check on the powers of the supreme court, but what? We can't take away the right to be elected for life, because that could lead to corruption, as the president fills it with his yes-men, so I say take the vote straight to the people. Something along the lines of 9 sections of the country each electing one representative. That way at least controversial issues will be represented from a country as a whole.
First off, we're all human(at least I hope so) and we make mistakes. Logically, we need someone to oversee our judgment. If these "judges" are qualified, then why shouldn't they get to decide if the laws we want passed or abolished are valid reasons from the constitution as our guide?-Justices are nominated by the president, but they need the majority approval of a senate which in turn was elected by the citizens who voted for the senate members-If so that they are valid, our decisions are looked upon and scrutinized. If 8-9 educated "justices" decide a certain way, there must be a logical reason in their decision. Moreover, it may be that I don't agree with them word for word, but it's their job to decern the legality of any law passed, using the constitution as the go between.
Secondly, Supreme Court Justices or other such federal judges can be impeached. Which means if they do get out of line or don't fulfill their duties; they can be held accountable for their actions. It's not like their decisions cannot be appealed.
All in all, we are all human, but these people are supposed to be more qualified in doing what they do then any average citizen or even above average. Which brings me to my original opinion; People aren't born to lead, they elect others who can. I'm for Judical Review all the way since it gives a voice to the minority who wanted a law abolished, or it proves that a law is constitutional, thereby being what this country was unionized for.
In my reply, I'm going to reply to Jenkins latest post: "but a group of judges should definitely not have a say on what the public comes to a decision on." (Jenkins)
That is exactly what the judges are for, to fairly fight for both sides that are arguing the legality of a law or cause. Let's be honest, morality is only a small fraction of what a law is for. I believe in these judges not only, because they ARE the best of the best, they are people who were CHOOSEN to do what they do.
The thought of judicial review in many ways has its flaws. A decision made by the majority of the people can be shot down by a small group of people. It all depends of circumstances that would surround that choice. In the case of Gay Marriage, we as a mojority should have no say in how people choose the way they live. If they wish to get married we have no right to deny their decision, but at the same time the thought that without this ability the thought that a majority in the 1800 or 1900 could have voted to shipped a majority out of the country. As shown this can be helpful and also destructive to our government. Judicial Review has its places in certain circumstances.
I think that a small group of judges should not have the right to overturn the a decision that the American people have voted for.
I think that the majority of people tend to be well informed when they vote. Those who are not tend to not care, and therefore, usually do not vote. If we as Americans choose to vote on a decision that we are not willing to learn about, then we should have to live with the consequences of that vote. It should not be up to a small room of judges or judge to decide for the American people. We as Americans should be mature enough to make decisions on our own and live with consequences that follow that decision.
I don't believe that in a "democracy", the peoples rights should be taken away, like they are when judges decide on our laws. How can they know better than us what we want?
I agree whole heartedly with c. Eddy about Americas being mature enough, and being informed to make our own decisions.
A school holds a vote and lets the students decide how long the school week should be. Unanimously, the student body votes for a three day school week. The district, forseeing problems with this new school week, overturns it and returns the traditional five day school week. Did the district have th right to do this? Do they hold the power to overturn what all 2000 students voted on and passed unanimously? The answer is a resounding yes. Although the students agreeded upon it, ultimatley the decision goes to the district board(or whatever it is called) to decide wether that will benefit everyone in the school. Some may think that a group of a few should be able to outweight the decision of the many, but just stop and think about it for a second. If the student were allowed to make all the decisions on how the school was run, then there would be three day school weeks, four hour school days, and more days off. What would happen to the budget? Do you really think that teenagers would choose the right thing to spend the budget on, or pass rules that would benefit everyone and not alienate some other people? Who knows, but I would guess very rarely. When we elect a president, we agree to may different things. We agree that he will lead our armies in a time of war, we agree he holds supreme executive power and, above everything else, we agree that the laws of the land will be interpreted (to an extent) in the way his party views them. Although we may not know it, the people agree to have laws that seem unconstituional go for judicial review and be judged by a group of judges, who were appointed by a president because they shared his views, and thus, pass judgement on said laws whether they agree with it or not. Methinks I doth talkest to long. Carpe diem
the judges should not have complete power over the people. what if the judges become corrupt, and are not impeached in time. they could really do some damage. the majority of the people may be wrong sometimes, but they are probably right most of the time.
our country's motto is basically freedom. freedom of speech, press, assembly, and all that jazz. why in the world would we want to take that away? yes, we may be wrong, and yes it may end up being a bad decision. but hey. we are free.
I agree with curtisb, change is good. ...most of the time....and change does not happen because of judges. change is made by the people. and the people deserve a voice, and a chance to make a better world
In response to Zach, we pick the president out of only a hanful of choices. We do not pick a leader to have his party control of what laws really mean. When Americans vote for a president, they arent trying to give the rule to that party. I think power like judicial review, espeacially if, like zach says that the party in power has influence with the judges, than that takes away the freedom to the masses to have a say.
I think judicial review is a nessecary thing we need, we elect judges to keep our country in check, we elect them to make the hard desicions but at the same time that if a majority passes a proposition a small group of people can deny it. Im waffling, we need a judicial review but sometimes we don't
The idea of Judicial Review is may be affected whether you favor a democracy or a republic. Obviously, we are a democratic republic, but those who leaning towards the republic may be thinking that a few well informed people should be able to over rule a large group, possibly even a majority that could be swayed by the news or uninformed views. Those favoring the democratic idea of majority rules such as kaitlin morris, may be thinking that it might be more likely for these individuals to be swayed by bribes or other personal benefits and biases. In my opinion, I believe we should keep it, but make sure we have good moral people with high ideals so that these decisions may not be made foolishly.
the thought that a group of people in goverment can completly overturn a law passed by the people from the people is poposterous because of the fact that these people were elected in by people or representatives who in turn elected by the vast majority of the public.
it is almost like an elder allowing you to do what you like unless it conflicts with thier beliefs so why not let all the rule making up to them?
I believe that we should keep Judicial Review because America was not always right as evidenced by slavery or equality between women and men. The people vote for their representatives and later these same people turn into members of this board so they are not only politacly capable but have at one point earnde the trust of the people, so in conclusion they should be allowed to stay and fix our wrongs. And if they wrong our rights then we can petition to change the rejected law using majority descision with a logical list of reasons as to why the law should not be rejected.
In my opinion, the United States should not eliminate the concept of Judicial Review because but at the same time, I do not think it deserves to have all that power. Yes the majority of people could be wrong, but the people in the Judicial Review are less, and their opinions could be wrong as well. The truth is it is difficult to know when someone is right or wrong involving situations like abortion, immigration, and economy.
I think that the they should keep the judges because they usually have a wider view of things. yes, we are the majority but we usually see things in the now, and for OUR benefit, but what about the future? The judges usually make decisions based on the people of the future. They saw freedom for blacks and for women when back then they were found in slavery and women were seen as insignificant.
Yes.. the people will complain but they usually just follow right along with it so it wont matter too much in the end.
I believe the United States should NOT eliminate the concept of Judicial Review because the majority is not always right. Just like a lot of the time when you were younger and believed STRONGLY that you should be allowed to stay up late and eat ice cream for breakfast, your parents made the decisions and were in standing to overturn your requests. This is because they KNEW what was better for you and having you with an upset stomach and grumpy attitude in the morning was NOT in your best interest... and most likely not theirs either. So in the same way, the majority of the people may KNOW what they want, believe firmly in the subject, however we are not always right, nor is it the best decision. (Ex. slavery, women's rights) And to follow up with Edna's comment, YES there will ALWAYS be someone who is upset with the way things turn out. You can not win them all. They can just suck it up, move on, and find a way to subsist with the rest.
54 comments:
I think that it is okay. Sometimes the majority is wrong, sometimes it's right, but in the end America was founded on the ideals of freedom and equality. ( I am going somewhere with this) This gave weight to the movement for black rights, and woman's rights. Did the majority support these? no, but they went along with the basic ideals of America!
So take the issues of today, Gay Marriage abortion. I would say I am against gay marriage, along with what I believe to be a slight majority. I think the country should be for it, though. It sounds like I'm waffling but I can back up what I believe. I think that when the majority goes against the ideals of this country it is important that there is a power to overturn it. If the majority can't stand it, then shouldn't they find a new place to live.
I would rather disagree with a policy in America then live in a country that acts hypocritically.
For more Kohl-ness check out my blog.
It might be good in times when the American people can be easily swayed by the political parties. Most of the time, however, it would be a better if the American citizens made the decision themselves. Most voters should be able to make an informed decision on their own.
If a single judge or group of judges overturned a decision made by millions of Americans, it could lead to unrest. Most of the time the judge would back the political party that appointed them, even if it meant going against what the public wanted.
Overall, it would be better if a choice made by the American people was passed instead of it being rejected by a small group of judges.
Honestly I feel that the concept of judicial review should be eliminated and that an important decision should not be made up to a judge or judges but up to the majority. Reasons why I think this is how can a judge have so much power that he can overturn a decision made by millions of Americans. It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go.
I would go either way on this one. I think that judicial review should be eliminated, because having judges being able to decide on something that effects the entire nation and can decide against the general population on what they vote, does not seem like something that should be kept. However, I also agree with the idea of having it. The majority of America can become so corrupt by the stories on the news, or what they read in the paper, and that in some cases is only the half of it. So if many American citizens only see the little picture, or choose to vote for/against something, only because of their personal reasons and experiences, do they all take the time to think about the big picture?
I believe it is okay, because a majority of the time, the majority is not right. Take for example slavery. A vast majority of the people in the 1700s wanted slavery, and thought it to be the right decision to continue enslaving Africans. We all know this was horribly wrong. And therefore, just because more people go one way doesn't justify that their way should be followed by an entire country.
Also, take in to account issues today such as abortion and gay marriage. Just because the majority of Americans are mainly against these issues, does not mean that they are right. I mean I thought America was the land of oppurtunity? Giving people the chance to live a happy life? And if these women who want the choice of abortion, and these Americans who love another human being regardless of their sex are going to be deprived of that happiness and the freedom to choose for themselves, then isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Now I'm not saying these judges are always right in their decision making, but they are part of the government who wants this country to succeed. And if that means overturning decisions made by the majority of Americans in order to keep the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness alive, then I believe Judicial Review is an imortant part of our government.
Well, judicial decisions are all fine and dandy in a world where the American revolution happened, but in a idealized situation where the British Crown still ruled supreme over this north American continent, such republican ideas of a "three branch" system would be severely frowned upon, by not only his royal Majesty in Windsor, but every loyal British citizen from London to Boston. And as such the petty idea of Judicial Review, could be throw aside and more important matters attended to. Like what type of tea is better (Earl Grey).
Long Live the King!
(PS- Cole, you're a giant waffle)
In response to Brandon, "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go".
I see your point with this. But maybe you should consider that most people chose what they think is best for them, or what they believe is okay based on personal experiences. Some people in this country are very closed minded and do not think about others, or even what is best for the country as a whole, only themselves. A majority of the people only view America as THEIR country, not the idea of the country belonging to all Americans. And if all of these people can over rule a government who wants the country of millions to succeed, is that such a great idea? Letting people who can be biased, and selfish on issues decide the final result only because there is a larger number in this group than the one who really considers and thinks about the principles of America such as freedom?
On the topic of judicial review, i could go both ways (no homo) but i choose to go against it.Overall i think that it should be removed, because one judge should not be able to overturn the decision of many Americans (as everybody already said). How does "power to the people" come into play if that one judge is over ruling the want and need of the people of this country. That quote should rather be "power to one judge" because thats basically what it is.
I believe that issues should be able to become overturn by judges. First you have got to ask yourself is the argument right or is it wrong? Sometimes you just can't be in the middle. Then you’d have to ask yourself is this what we really stand for? And what kind of liberty did our founding fathers really want for us? I mean liberty is what our country is about, or so they say .Is this (Our liberty now) the kind of liberty that our founding brothers intended us to have. Or have we made it into a play dough mold that well fits our minds? For example the issue of abortion. (I Don't mean to offend anyone who doesn't agree) but I won't apologize for what I believe. People think they can go around and not pay for their consequences. Look if your going to go out and have sex with a guy and you get pregnant then that was your decision, I’m sure you knew there was a chance of it happening, and you took it and you have to be responsible for that. I’m against abortion. If you want to get an abortion you got to remember that is a human being. From the moment your pregnant you have got a precious creature growing inside of you. Sure you might not think so, but you are stealing the life of a human being. Could someone possibly live peacefully with a conscience like that? I mean I understand that times change, but usually if something is wrong today, it would have probably been wrong back in Washington’s time. Then you have to ask yourself if it wasn't right then , why should it b right now? Just because we change it doesn't mean that are morals should. I just think that it's not right. Its understandable that people will always, for the most part disagree on something. And another example is gay marriage FIRMLY BELIEVE that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s just my opinion. I built my house on a rock, and with Gods grace on a rock it shall stay. I believe our country was based off Christian morals, and they should remain that way. Even though we did some crummy things that we aren’t exactly proud of such as slavery, we should still stick with them. Like kohl said most of the time, the majority is wrong. So with that being said, I believe that they should be allowed to overturn a decision. And if it’s a good decision that they pass, then good, and if it's not, then boy does that suck for whoever disagrees! Because its going to be something that we are going to have to life with. I just don't want to get lost in this fast changing world. A nation only reflects the choices of individuals. And it’s so true. Maybe we aren’t as free as we thought we were?
(i just changed my name..formerly:nam11) but anyways, on this issue i actually agree with b.knight22. He shares the same viewpoint as i do, saying that "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go". I believe that if the majority of the people want the same thing, it should be given to them. Whether or not it is right, that is up to the people because they control the the rise or decline of this country and their decisions would result in one of those.
i think its wrong. Like cole says, the country was founded on freedom ideals. But in a country founded on the will of the people have all descions made for them by a group of the people?
I dont think a small group has a right to decide for us what is right for this country.
I think change can happen on its own. Civil rights didnt happen because the judicial branch backed it, it started because because some stood up for what they believed in. Its not the courts doing. Even if the majority believes one thing, it does mean that its set in stone that people will always believe that. THings like that can change over time. two hundreds years ago blacks were though of as less than human, and slowly people began to realize that was wrong, odds are that will happen again.
I think its because of the people that change should happen, and the courts shouldnt have the power to decide against what the people.
As said before by Kohl, the concept of Judicial Review was very important to vote on many complicated cases that the people could not decide on themselves. However, many things have changed over the years.
While I do think there are people capable of deciding on issues properly, most appear not to be. This is why this concept is still very good. However, it definitely needs some work.
While I do not think it should be eliminated, there are many problems with this system of doing things:
1) Important issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. never get through.
2) Only 5 people can overrule everyone elses' opinion.
3) They are given a lot of power with very little to stop it.
And this is why they need to be more involved within the checks and balances system. With only the president to choose them, who can remove them if the public sees fit? If this cannot be solved, how do these issues ever get dealt with? They don't.
At least not until everyone is able to agree. Oh, nevermind. If 5 out of 9 people can agree.
Despite all of this, it is still a very good concept and a great place holder in case anyone is able to make a far better system in the future.
first i agree with kohl's comments on the majority rule of America going against the prime ideals and reasons this country was founded for in the first place. i do like his conclusions drawn from the movement of black rights of how the majority was truly against it but it would be "unconstitutional" to not grant these people the same freedom and equality that America's Constitution does offer.
Yes i can see how sometimes the majority of American's "don't know what's in their best interest" but this can not be the reason that an individual's voice must not be heard.
what i'm saying is that the idea of judicial review clearly deprives individual citizens (or the majority) of their rights and abilities to make decisions for themselves! if the american people are willing to give a their own rights to decide for them, then why not give ALL YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN a single body that will make decisions for us! YEAH!!!
that sound alot like communism!
everybody shout yeah for communists!!
my point is that if we americans allow a judicary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck, why not give government all of the power we have and give up our american rights. if we falter and surrender ANY ONE of our important freedoms or rights, then ALL THE REST will be taken from us in a heartbeat.
i feel it is our right and duty as americans to stand up and say no when we disagree with something or we want our voice to be heard! that's something that should never be denied of any human being
I find that Judicial Review is imporant to our country, because like "kohl dulas" said somrtimes the majority IS wrong. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed becuase they should be "fair" and unbiased. SOmetimes this is not the case, but the president appoints who they think is best for the job. I think that major decisions like abortion and gay marriage should be handeled by the most cabale IE the Supreme Court
In response to Brandon, "It should always be up to the people on whether or not a law or something of the sort should stay or go".
Not to Waffle but yes SOMETIMES the people need to have this power but if their decision is inhumane to the other free americans in their country thats when Judicial Review Needs to step in and change it. Who is to say what love and marriage is? If two are in love then let them get married, times are changeing and we as a country need to adapt, we are so used to going through the motions and a change is needed. The Declaration Clearly states that "all men are created equal" & "Life liberty and persuit of Happiness". The Supreme court should have this in mind when they make their decisions. Even if it goes against the decision of the Majority
I think that judicial review is headed in the right direction and so far has worked well for this country in many aspects. Just like Sarah said if it wasn't for this system we would most likely still have slavery.
Just because the majority agrees on an issue does not make it right. I think we are lucky to have this system, because without it government would be going around in circles trying to please everyone and important decisions would never be finalized. Judicial review is kind of like America's conscience, especially when it comes to touchy moral issues like everyone has mentioned.
What it comes down to is that issues such as gay marriage and abortion are moral issues and i believe that the Supreme Court is walking on thin ice when it comes to both. I really couldn't say which side the majority lies on, but i believe it is the executive branches job to not necessarily pacify everyone but make a decision based on right and wrong.
Everyone talks about freedom to express yourself and live your own life, but on the topic of abortion murder is a crime, why is an unborn life the exception? That is where judicial review needs to decide what is Consitutional to overlook and make an exception for because Americans will never fully agree.
In response to Sarah: I fully understand where your coming from but the majority of people today in America would agree on what is right and wrong. Those people from 200 years ago of course would have backed up slavery because they were simple-minded and ignorant. Also the majority would vote against gay marriage because its the right decision. Marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women because it says so in the bible.
I agree with DMaggio,
we cannot have a small group of people controlling what is best for the nation. If we let them do this, why don't we just surrender our rights to them right now, and throw away everything the founding fathers struggled to achieve?
Change has to come from the people, and it is because of the people change is brought about in the first place. No one's future is etched in stone, not even this nation's. The people must decide the fate of their country, and if wrong choices are made, they can be changed to the will of the people.
If what we want can be turned away from us, then what did we all fight for? Why should we give up our most precious gift, if it was the whole reason we are here today? Having Judicial Review is like taking away people's freedom to choose their future, which in the end violates everything that this nation stands for.
P.S. I apologize to everyone who may find this post a tad redundant(it just flows from my fingers).
I am completley for judicial review. The so called "majority" may vote for a certain issue such as gay marraige, but what gives this "majority" the right to choose how others live. The judicial review allows educated people to truely decide if a sometimes irrational descision created by angry fundamentalists is indeed constitutional. Honostly if we cant except gays for who they are and who they want to be it clearly goes against the so called freedoms that America is based around. Another issue being brought up is abortion. A women should be alowed to choose what is done to her own body. Simple as that. There are some people who may not be ready for the extreme responsibility that comes with raising a child. Angry mothers should not be able to say that it is wrong or right, the court should.
To "samein santos",
This is the complete opposite of what I believe. If America becomes a nation that bases its laws and morals around the christian religion, than we would have no freedoms and become a theocracy. I would be sickened if all our laws were pulled out of the bible. America is great because I am alowed to be an atheist, have rights, and not have to be a part of a church. If the American government took away religious freedom than it would go against one of the primary values it was founded on, and I would move back to Canada...
I think a small group of judges having the ability to overturn laws is wrong!
Usually things get done here by a majority of people backing it up, and that makes sense. If more than half the people are voting on a law, why should just 7, 8, or 9 judges have the power to say no to it?
Ever since I can remember everything from elementary school to sport teams has always been "majority rules." There are always some people that aren't going to be happy, but we can't please everyone because we're all different. There will always be a minority, but why should they be favored all the time? Why would a minority of judges be able to make the choices of thousands or millions of people? For example, the diversity of schooling we talked about in class; the government favors the minority. Maybe because they are also a minority? I mean there are all these people who work so hard in school, study their butts off, and get moved back on an acceptance list just because another person is Asian, Mexican, or something like that. (I'm not trying to be racist!! Don't get mad, just using exmples! & I know this is a little of subject but I think I have apoint!) I understand there is not the same quality of education everywhere in this country, believe me. But maybe the government should focus on controlling that so everyone has the chance to get the same opportunities! If we did that, there would be less minorities here.
I also get how what people want is not always right, or maybe selfish, like that saying "What is popular is not always right, but what is right is not always popular." But like I said, no matter what happens not every sigle person will be completely 100% happy. Therefore, shouldn't we make the majority of people satisfied instead?
I believe that a judge or judges should be able to overturn the majority of America. Let's face it, the majority of the American people don't have the depth of knowledge of the Constitution to choose what is particulary good for the rest of America. For example, the majority of America believed in pro-slavery, and if it wasn't for Judicial Review, then who knows where we'd be. Some think the Court's decisions are not always in the best interests of the people, but is it really supposed to be in every specific person's best interest? No, it is supposed to be in the best interest of America as a whole and its adherence to the principles of the Constitution.
Thank you Andrew Melnik, very very well said. I could'n't agree with you more. Bravo.
And responding to Brandon again, I don't want to argue about the gay marriage issue, but you said something about that it was wrong because it "says so in the Bible". Similar to Andrew, I have to say that our government is not a theocracy. It is a seperation of church and state. The Bible should not be brought into the courts, or any branch of government.
Also, you said people back then were simple-minded and ignorant, which I believe is still true today and not just in the past. Like I said before, a majority of Americans today are selfish and only think of themselves when it comes to politics, not the country as a whole. Many are closed minded and will not accept that times have changed and that it is necessary to take on new perspectives and embrace new ideals in order for the country to evolve and succeed in the future.
I think that Judicial Revew is a good thing. Many times citizens in the U.S. get rialed up about certain subjects and are persuaded to vote for things even when they don't know what they are voting for. A lot of people who vote are not informed voters.
The judges who have the power of judicial review are always informed and know both sides of the arguements. This helps them to make informed decisions about what is truly best for our country.
nam11, i understand perfectly where you are coming from. Judicial Review may cause people to feel as if their votes don't really count so there is no reason in voting. But, you have to remember that many people who do vote only consider one side of the arguement and go with that.
"I believe our country was based off Christian morals, and they should remain that way. Even though we did some crummy things that we aren’t exactly proud of such as slavery, we should still stick with them."
"Marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women because it says so in the bible."
"my point is that if we americans allow a judicary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck..."
First off, I want to address these quotes with the quote of another man whom we all should be familiar. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
The passing of these laws would do EXACTLY the opposite of that, and immediately make the United States a Christian, or to say the least, religious nation. I would challenge anyone to find any evidence against gay marriage other than the "Bible says so". The truth is there is no evidence of any crimes committed by people who consider themselves homosexual any more than that of a heterosexual person. All of the supposedly important moral issues are merely inside one major issue that seems to be glanced over by everyone, and is considered "untouchable" the nation over. Think about every death that has been caused over religious differences, and you cannot even begin to estimate the number; you cannot even fathom it. Now I am not trying to push beliefs in one way or another but am merely saying to look at the physical evidence. Look at the fact that every single member of that Supreme Court has their opinions automatically biased by being a member of a specific church or another.
I am not sure if I am missing anything here, but the fact that a country supposedly founded on liberty, seems to have one automatic bias that almost every governmental member follows, doesn't sound very "free" to me.
It is true that the majority is often wrong, but we must all look into why this is. Why do literally billions of Americans all believe that one idea or lifestyle is considered so immoral? The answer, I believe, is misinformation. Instead of actually learning about any of these issues we automatically let our emotional side get in the way and make what we believe automatically take control of what we question or think.
Giving nine (corruptible, both politically and non) men the ability to change the way I live my life or what I am able to say or believe does not seem like freedom to me, and I question if it does to anyone else.
If we all just thought about these issues for a moment without swaying to one side or the other we might actually make progress, I believe. I am going to now attempt to speak as rationally as I can, and refrain mixing morals or ethics in for the purpose of example, so don't take it as anything more than it is. An unborn fetus does not have the ability to retain thought or consciously use cognitive function. A housefly, on the other hand, has a developed brain, a nervous system, feels emotions, and is just as alive as any human, though we don't think for a second about swatting a fly or killing a cockroach. Natural selection has shown that life is dangerous, and the odds are against survival a vast amount of the time. Instead of fighting over these petty grievances we should be working towards uniting what we do have, helping our fellow men and women the best we possibly can, and allowing everyone the freedom they deserve without having to unnecessarily antagonize over others based on their views.
I hope I didn't offend anyone or try to make it seem as though I think a certain way about certain views; that was not my intention. I am simply saying we should question everything, as Aristotle told us, and we should look for ways to solve these problems in ways other than ignoring them and passing on the responsibility of decision making by saying we are mostly "ignorant".
I think that judicial review is the STUPIDEST idea in the world. Why should 9 all mighty men and women tell AMERICA whats wrong and right? Important decisions should always be made by the people, if it turns out that majority got it wrong then they just go back and fix it that why they invented amendments. Its easy to play monday morning quaterback on the issue of slavery because we know alot more today then in olden times.
I think that it is wrong. It doesnt seem fair at all to let only a few people control the decisions of so many thousands of people. Even though it has proved to be effective a few times, such as abolishing slavery, I think it should be removed.
I understand what you're saying m-squared, but i still have to disagree. When you're talking about how in elementary school and sports it's always majority rules that's all well and good, but the thing is this isn't elementary school. This is our government and very important issues that can change our country as a whole. It's true that in both cases there are going to be unhappy people, but with having Judicial Rule, justices are trying to create a happier and more stable country.
Also, you're making it sound like they always side with the minority, which is false. True, the Court does side with the minority, but they also side with the majority, which makes it different than Affirmative Action which is trying to create diversity. Like Sarah said too, this is the land of opportunity; everyone has the opportunity to get a great education, and it's not like people who work their butts off aren't going to get into a great college. You don't apply at one place, so if you aren't accepted somewhere, more often than not you're going to be accepted somewhere else.
I don't think that judicial review is all that bad, but it does stink to be a citizen who thinks that they have the priveledge to vote when the real decision lies in a judge. I think it is better than majority rule since the judges who are making the decisions have more insight and understanding of our government than most people do. Overall, I think that it should be allowed since it has worked in the past and it allows the judge to make the right decision when the majority is wrong. I agree with Sarah because she explains that we may still have slavery, but since it was stopped by the responsible leaders of our country, we were finally able to be rid of it. By allowing the citizens vote through majority rule, then we would have laws with immoral values such as gay marriages and abortions which are stated in the Bible as wrong and wicked. And from what I remember the Declaration and our dollar bil still says, "In God We Trust" which makes it important to continue to keep our virtues.
I agree with nam11 about how were supposed to have the 'power to the people' but that its only given to a few judges. It makes it seem like the people hardly have a say in it because no matter what they say it can be changed by just a few judges who may or may not happen to have the same morals, opinions, and standards as you do.
i believe that judicial review is definately a good thing. You have to keep in mind that the government is actually trying to do what is best and right for us. this includes sticking to the constitution. Look at it this way, if there was noone to make sure that we were staying to it we would be living in a completely different society. If D.C. did not have the ability to overturn cases, this could turn a good, hardworking man or woman from one state into a criminal soewhere else.
in response to curtisb:
"I dont think a small group has a right to decide for us what is right for this country."
I mean this with the upmost respect, but this is basically saying that you would rather have an even smaller group of people (state government) tell you what's right and what's wrong. this could also lead to states speaking out against decisions made in other states, which could lead to internal conflicts, and potentially another civil war.
Well in response to what Anthony said
"but this is basically saying that you would rather have an even smaller group of people (state government) tell you what's right and what's wrong."
The state goverment at least can be swayed by the will of the people. Its better than lettin a small group thats not influenced by the will of the people making our descions.
In all honesty this reminds me of the colonist during the revoloution who complained about represantation in parliment. No matter what the people say, judicaial review gives the courts the power to say what they want stands as a law.
okay, i get what you mean big o. but im pretty stubborn and i still think its wrong to have a group of about 9 people making and breaking laws that thousands of people wanted. we are also a country that wants everyone to have the ability to pursue happiness..and i think if the people decide what they want they will be happier.
to samein- i understand where you are coming from, i was raised with christian morals as well. & i agree america was based on those christian morals, but we are also a country that has freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of MANY other things! so what about the girls that get raped and get pregnant? would you want to live with that baby? and if a gay couple got married, what would they do to bother you? if they're in love, shouldn't that be all that matters! think about those things too. if government decided against both those issuses, they would be ceasing gay couples right to be in love and their own pursuit of happiness. if they stopped abortion, there would be SO MANY children with unstable homes, and that to me is just as bad.
I agree with what josh said. A small group of people, no matter how educated or informed on the subject, should have a decision on what the millions of Americans voted on.
Even if a decision that the public voted on was a poorly made one, they could bring the bill or amendment up at the next time of voting, and the public could fix it then, but a group of judges should definitely not have a say on what the public comes to a decision on.
I don't think that judges should be able to decide on what is right or wrong. If people have something that they stongly believe in, why not let them decide? A group of judges shouldn't be allowed to decide certain things. What is so absoutely important about these specific people to let them choose what rights people shuld have?
I believe that if the American people want to make decisions you should let them make them whether you agree or disagree.
I do see where many of these people are coming from with their decision to lean towards letting the judges decide but take into consideration the fact of them being biased. Like many peole have brought into their arguments the topic of gay marriage an abortion. It's in human nature to be stereotypical and or prejudice in one way or the other. It's not always bad but what if a bill for gay marriage were to come up and there were 5 judges who highly disagreed with it? Do you think that that is fair to the people who worked so hard on trying to get their bill passed? No, and that is why I think it should be left up to the people.
In response to colin, I think it is both valid and invalid to use arguments like "the bible says so" For two reasons, the first being that we are a country of faith. Not christian faith so much as faith in general. Such as christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish. So in that sense I believe that to uphold values of this country arguments based on the bile shouldn't stand up. Does this mean, however, that we should stop counting someone's view on something simply because it is inspired by their faith? Absolutely not! So to be honest, I am against Gay marriage, why? because the bible says it's wrong. So does this mean my view instantly becomes invalid all together? I see it this way. If you believe in the bible, It dictates how you should act. I assume other religious scriptures do similarly. So they set up a moral foundation in the household based on scripture. So The argument "Th bible says so" Or "The tora says so" or "The kuran says so" Take on a whole new value, because The bible might say so, but because of how it has shaped and crafted my beliefs now I say so.
Sorry about that that is my personal debate with colin.
I agree with maggio, to quote
"...judiciary body of government to take our God-given right to vote on controversial issues and make decisions for ourselves that will impact our lives, then what the heck, why not give government all of the power we have and give up our american rights."
I would like to add that I believe we need a bigger, better check on the powers of the supreme court, but what? We can't take away the right to be elected for life, because that could lead to corruption, as the president fills it with his yes-men, so I say take the vote straight to the people. Something along the lines of 9 sections of the country each electing one representative. That way at least controversial issues will be represented from a country as a whole.
First off, we're all human(at least I hope so) and we make mistakes. Logically, we need someone to oversee our judgment. If these "judges" are qualified, then why shouldn't they get to decide if the laws we want passed or abolished are valid reasons from the constitution as our guide?-Justices are nominated by the president, but they need the majority approval of a senate which in turn was elected by the citizens who voted for the senate members-If so that they are valid, our decisions are looked upon and scrutinized. If 8-9 educated "justices" decide a certain way, there must be a logical reason in their decision. Moreover, it may be that I don't agree with them word for word, but it's their job to decern the legality of any law passed, using the constitution as the go between.
Secondly, Supreme Court Justices or other such federal judges can be impeached. Which means if they do get out of line or don't fulfill their duties; they can be held accountable for their actions. It's not like their decisions cannot be appealed.
All in all, we are all human, but these people are supposed to be more qualified in doing what they do then any average citizen or even above average. Which brings me to my original opinion; People aren't born to lead, they elect others who can. I'm for Judical Review all the way since it gives a voice to the minority who wanted a law abolished, or it proves that a law is constitutional, thereby being what this country was unionized for.
In my reply, I'm going to reply to Jenkins latest post:
"but a group of judges should definitely not have a say on what the public comes to a decision on." (Jenkins)
That is exactly what the judges are for, to fairly fight for both sides that are arguing the legality of a law or cause. Let's be honest, morality is only a small fraction of what a law is for. I believe in these judges not only, because they ARE the best of the best, they are people who were CHOOSEN to do what they do.
The thought of judicial review in many ways has its flaws. A decision made by the majority of the people can be shot down by a small group of people. It all depends of circumstances that would surround that choice. In the case of Gay Marriage, we as a mojority should have no say in how people choose the way they live. If they wish to get married we have no right to deny their decision, but at the same time the thought that without this ability the thought that a majority in the 1800 or 1900 could have voted to shipped a majority out of the country. As shown this can be helpful and also destructive to our government. Judicial Review has its places in certain circumstances.
I think that a small group of judges should not have the right to overturn the a decision that the American people have voted for.
I think that the majority of people tend to be well informed when they vote. Those who are not tend to not care, and therefore, usually do not vote. If we as Americans choose to vote on a decision that we are not willing to learn about, then we should have to live with the consequences of that vote. It should not be up to a small room of judges or judge to decide for the American people. We as Americans should be mature enough to make decisions on our own and live with consequences that follow that decision.
I don't believe that in a "democracy", the peoples rights should be taken away, like they are when judges decide on our laws. How can they know better than us what we want?
I agree whole heartedly with c. Eddy about Americas being mature enough, and being informed to make our own decisions.
A school holds a vote and lets the students decide how long the school week should be. Unanimously, the student body votes for a three day school week. The district, forseeing problems with this new school week, overturns it and returns the traditional five day school week. Did the district have th right to do this? Do they hold the power to overturn what all 2000 students voted on and passed unanimously? The answer is a resounding yes. Although the students agreeded upon it, ultimatley the decision goes to the district board(or whatever it is called) to decide wether that will benefit everyone in the school. Some may think that a group of a few should be able to outweight the decision of the many, but just stop and think about it for a second. If the student were allowed to make all the decisions on how the school was run, then there would be three day school weeks, four hour school days, and more days off. What would happen to the budget? Do you really think that teenagers would choose the right thing to spend the budget on, or pass rules that would benefit everyone and not alienate some other people? Who knows, but I would guess very rarely.
When we elect a president, we agree to may different things. We agree that he will lead our armies in a time of war, we agree he holds supreme executive power and, above everything else, we agree that the laws of the land will be interpreted (to an extent) in the way his party views them. Although we may not know it, the people agree to have laws that seem unconstituional go for judicial review and be judged by a group of judges, who were appointed by a president because they shared his views, and thus, pass judgement on said laws whether they agree with it or not. Methinks I doth talkest to long. Carpe diem
the judges should not have complete power over the people. what if the judges become corrupt, and are not impeached in time. they could really do some damage. the majority of the people may be wrong sometimes, but they are probably right most of the time.
our country's motto is basically freedom. freedom of speech, press, assembly, and all that jazz. why in the world would we want to take that away? yes, we may be wrong, and yes it may end up being a bad decision. but hey. we are free.
I agree with curtisb, change is good.
...most of the time....and change does not happen because of judges. change is made by the people. and the people deserve a voice, and a chance to make a better world
In response to Zach, we pick the president out of only a hanful of choices. We do not pick a leader to have his party control of what laws really mean. When Americans vote for a president, they arent trying to give the rule to that party. I think power like judicial review, espeacially if, like zach says that the party in power has influence with the judges, than that takes away the freedom to the masses to have a say.
Yea, i got to agree with Megant
"yes, we may be wrong, and yes it may end up being a bad decision. but hey. we are free."
I think judicial review is a nessecary thing we need, we elect judges to keep our country in check, we elect them to make the hard desicions but at the same time that if a majority passes a proposition a small group of people can deny it. Im waffling, we need a judicial review but sometimes we don't
The idea of Judicial Review is may be affected whether you favor a democracy or a republic. Obviously, we are a democratic republic, but those who leaning towards the republic may be thinking that a few well informed people should be able to over rule a large group, possibly even a majority that could be swayed by the news or uninformed views.
Those favoring the democratic idea of majority rules such as kaitlin morris, may be thinking that it might be more likely for these individuals to be swayed by bribes or other personal benefits and biases.
In my opinion, I believe we should keep it, but make sure we have good moral people with high ideals so that these decisions may not be made foolishly.
the thought that a group of people in goverment can completly overturn a law passed by the people from the people is poposterous because of the fact that these people were elected in by people or representatives who in turn elected by the vast majority of the public.
it is almost like an elder allowing you to do what you like unless it conflicts with thier beliefs so why not let all the rule making up to them?
those were my thoughts =)
I believe that we should keep Judicial Review because America was not always right as evidenced by slavery or equality between women and men. The people vote for their representatives and later these same people turn into members of this board so they are not only politacly capable but have at one point earnde the trust of the people, so in conclusion they should be allowed to stay and fix our wrongs. And if they wrong our rights then we can petition to change the rejected law using majority descision with a logical list of reasons as to why the law should not be rejected.
In my opinion, the United States should not eliminate the concept of Judicial Review because but at the same time, I do not think it deserves to have all that power.
Yes the majority of people could be wrong, but the people in the Judicial Review are less, and their opinions could be wrong as well.
The truth is it is difficult to know when someone is right or wrong involving situations like abortion, immigration, and economy.
I think that the they should keep the judges because they usually have a wider view of things. yes, we are the majority but we usually see things in the now, and for OUR benefit, but what about the future? The judges usually make decisions based on the people of the future. They saw freedom for blacks and for women when back then they were found in slavery and women were seen as insignificant.
Yes.. the people will complain but they usually just follow right along with it so it wont matter too much in the end.
I believe the United States should NOT eliminate the concept of Judicial Review because the majority is not always right. Just like a lot of the time when you were younger and believed STRONGLY that you should be allowed to stay up late and eat ice cream for breakfast, your parents made the decisions and were in standing to overturn your requests. This is because they KNEW what was better for you and having you with an upset stomach and grumpy attitude in the morning was NOT in your best interest... and most likely not theirs either.
So in the same way, the majority of the people may KNOW what they want, believe firmly in the subject, however we are not always right, nor is it the best decision. (Ex. slavery, women's rights)
And to follow up with Edna's comment, YES there will ALWAYS be someone who is upset with the way things turn out. You can not win them all. They can just suck it up, move on, and find a way to subsist with the rest.
Post a Comment