Golden Jubilee
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: Lyman, IA
Re: politic on the board
lbesq wrote:I My take is that it is a CHOICE that the Nuns make, .
Oh, and I find it interesting that the Judges who have found against the EO are all appointees of the past administration, Could they not have argued this before someone from and earlier administration? Just a thought. Peace all.
In North America and in most of the rest of the world not controlled by religious zealots, it is also a choice. Just like the Silk's turban, it is their choice to wear as their religious identity.
As to the judges, do your research, most have been sitting long before Obama took office and appointed by others. Law suits were brought by the DA's in that area, The plaintiff doesn't get to go to another jurisdiction to judge shop, neither does the defendant. The appeal system is there to prevent one suit before one judge to be way out of line. Our legal system is set up the way it is to be as impartial as possible, it is only recently that appointment to the supreme court have become political, but the reason they have a lifetime appointment, is so they can give their rulings without being subject to political pressure.
To me, nothing could be more scary than a legal system subject to political whims, it would cease to be a legal system but a political enforcement system.
Too be sure, there are times the lines have been blurred, in invoking of the "commerce clause" to force individuals to do things and "citizens united " are two that I don't agree with, but recognize that the court has ruled, and that we need to either accept it, or change the laws behind the decisions. The courts job is to interpret the laws as written. Just as in religion, there are those on the bench who want to take a literal interpretation (fundamenalist) and those who want to interpret as a "living document" to revise to keep up with changing world. Both sides have valid points. If the constitution were written in todays world it would be much different, I suspect driveing a car would be more of a "right" and guns less so, back when it was writen cars weren't around and guns were a way to survive, needed by just about everyone for obtaining food. I view the constitution as a framework to make sure things are kept in check, I don't want to return to 1770's idea of what is right and wrong. Remember, slavery existed within the constitution, business was allowed bankruptcy, individuals were sent to debtors prison, woman were considered more or less property, and had no vote, the list goes on and on, all were considered at the time within the constitution and acceptable.