Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality
So you love when the right uses obscure the 1873 Comstock Act — to try to prohibit most mailing of abortion medications or supplies,
So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense
All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.
To think otherwise is just absurd.
The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.
And Partisan elections make that happen ,
partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.
Partisan elections for judges you should be more concerned with that most Americans don’t think that’s how it work
The race between Gustafson and Brown was the most expensive judicial election in the state’s history, with more than $1.5 million spent independently by interest groups. Conservative groups invested heavily to support Brown, who identified as a “constitutional conservative” and said that Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte asked him to run for the seat. Ads by both Brown and supportive groups attacked Gustafson as unethical and anti-business and sought to tie her to President Biden.
Buying judges or pleasing constituents is all that partisan election are good for …. The Law suffers
and look what states love doing it that way
Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas (two courts)
|
wayne clearly you never gut above an F in middle school
civics.
Legislatures exist to write laws.
what’s absurd to me, is that any supreme court judge could say with a straight face, that the right to protection against illegal search and seizure, applies to a woman’s right to abortion.
that’s judicial activism. Which you were always in favor of, i til conservatives took a majority.
Well wayne, what’s good for the goose…