|
|
#42
05-22-2006, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rogues in robes
[ QUOTE ]
Lifetime appointments? Removing that element of accountability to the electorate cuts both ways. [/ QUOTE ] State court judges are elected to four-year terms in nonpartisan, countywide elections. Candidates must be at least 25 years old, have been admitted to practice law for at least seven years, and have lived in the state for at least three years. linky A little more research is in order 
|
|
#43
05-22-2006, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rogues in robes
Disagree. Who can contract marriage with whom should not be subject to a vote.
|
|
#44
05-22-2006, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anyone seen the opposite?
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, in the past 20 years, can you think of a liberal initiative that got huge popular support and was then blocked in the courts? [/ QUOTE ] I forget the date, but the United States Supreme Court shot down a federal law that banned firearms within a few hundred feet of schools. They did so under the Commerce Clause, which is one of the grayest areas of federal constitutional jurisprudence known in this country.
|
|
#45
05-22-2006, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rogues in robes
[ QUOTE ]
This one? "Jan. 17, 2006 — In a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court sided with Oregon in upholding the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law. " Was reaffirmed 3 to 2 in 1997, not exactly like 77%. I can't get the Lautenberg/Torricelli screwing out of my mind. What a judicial joke the NJ SC made of themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Oops. I guess I got that one backwards. I guess what I remembered about it was that the supposed "federalists" on the bench voted wrong on that one. (and of course, the supposed commerce-clause junkies abandoned principles here, as usual) natedogg
|
|
#46
05-22-2006, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anyone seen the opposite?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Specifically, in the past 20 years, can you think of a liberal initiative that got huge popular support and was then blocked in the courts? [/ QUOTE ] I forget the date, but the United States Supreme Court shot down a federal law that banned firearms within a few hundred feet of schools. They did so under the Commerce Clause, which is one of the grayest areas of federal constitutional jurisprudence known in this country. [/ QUOTE ] That was the Violence Against Women act. One of that last instances of the court imposing restrictions on commerce clause-based legislation. The NY state wine-shippers case is another one. But they are few and far between, unfortunately. One of the main reasons for the court's deference to commerce-clause is the drug war. natedogg
|
|
#47
05-22-2006, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anyone seen the opposite?
The days of the general welfare and commerce clauses being used by congress to establish otherwise unconstitutional provisions are coming to an end.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
