-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Legislators have actually been writing laws in such a way that judges
can decide how they should be implemented. (The Americans with
Disabilities Act is a good example). This takes the legislators off the
hook during election time and all is good as long as you get "your kind
of people" in the judicial branch.
The process eliminates that pesky democratic thingy but causes a lot of
political strife - in case you haven't noticed...
Mark W.
Coincidentally there has been a NYT article, pulling together
data
which is checkable, so its lickspittle surrenderist socialism
can be discounted : -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down
Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President
George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63
percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President
Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The
tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered
more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and
John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional
statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently
to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the
latter group is the most activist.
And some wag has added, as one would, were one waggish:-
Whatever conservative justices are showing here, it sure ain't "humility
in the face of the common-sense of citizens as reflected through
democratically-elected legislatures."
The bit in quotes is, I gather, meme from someone named Zywicki.
But IOKIYAAR, so it's OK.
__________________________________________________________________
This message might contain confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error please do not forward it or copy it or act upon its contents, but report it to [log in to unmask]
Schroders has the right lawfully to record, monitor and inspect messages between its employees and any third party. Your messages shall be subject to such lawful supervision as Schroders deems to be necessary in order to protect its information, its interests and its reputation.
Schroders prohibits and takes steps to prevent its information systems from being used to view, store or forward offensive or discriminatory material. If this message contains such material please report it to [log in to unmask]
Schroders does not normally accept or offer business instructions via email unless prior agreements are in place. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk.
Schroder Investment Management Limited
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Schroder Investment Management Limited is entered on the FSA register under the following register number: 119348
Registered Office
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA
Registered number 1893220
VAT registration number 243 8687 30
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
