4 ms·
Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the
by cookiecaper 11y ago
Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated.
If you believe you should have a right you don't have, or that you should or shouldn't be sent to jail for a particular activity, the right people to contact and hold accountable are your representatives in the appropriate legislative body. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, even if they personally do not agree with the most accurate interpretation. Changing law or creating new law is the province of the legislature.
- hackuser 11y ago> Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. I agree that's the ideal but we are talking about what happens in the real world, where clearly many judges' political and ideological views have significant influence. If not, why would the GOP care if Obama chooses the next Justice? Why is Scalia's passing considered a blow to partisan Republicans and ideological conservatives? A prominent attorney once said to me: Judges put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everybody else. The point of my original comment (several levels up) and the person who responded is that Scalia indeed used his seat to advocate his beliefs.