4 ms·
The job of a judge is exactly to NOT see "what is wrong with this". Activist judges are very, very bad. Congress, and to a lesser extent POTUS, are the parties
by waps 12y ago
The job of a judge is exactly to NOT see "what is wrong with this". Activist judges are very, very bad.
Congress, and to a lesser extent POTUS, are the parties that have voted in these laws and are controlling the agencies doing this, and have the power to change them. Judges should NOT attempt to do so. That is the very definition of what a judge does.
- rtpg 12y agoat what point in your conception of the world do unjust laws get struck down?
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoAt the Legislature or Executive are both wrong answers, as the Judiciary is also a check and balance.
- mhenr18 12y agoProbably at the point of not voting in the people who make those laws in the first place.
- lawnchair_larry 12y agoFalse, activist judges can be good or bad, but are usually good. Unless you are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-desegregation, then yeah, you might think it's terrible.
- waps 12y agoI prefer the term "pro-democracy" and pro "having a law". Both parties have mastered using presidential appointments to the supreme court to "change" the law. This is very bad, as they're not supposed to be in control of that. The judiciary's "check and balances" check is mostly to prevent congress from going against the constitution (ridiculous example: voting slavery back in with 51% of votes). That is their function.