[Judges are not supposed to be accountable to the majority, that is the legislature. Judges are accountable to the law.]
What lib school did you attend?There are 3 branches of government that are beholden to the constitution. Now please google the constitution and tell us the FIRST THREE WORDS of the constitution. Wow you just got the education on the lost information you missed attending a homo function.
43 comments
I'm pretty sure that if the Founders had wanted the Supreme Court to be directly accountable to the people, they wouldn't have made the position one of lifetime appointment. I'm also pretty sure that you would speak with respect if you didn't know deep down that you're wrong and that you have to overcompensate with anger.
Please read The Constitution in full. Upon completion of that task, return to discuss your findings.
While you're in a "fact-finding" mood, read your bible, as well.
Until then, shut the fuck up.
The first three words is obviously as far as this guy got with the constitution. Don't blame him, it's a bit tl,dr.
Ever heard of a little thing called "Tyranny of the Majority," Schu?
'Tis one of the reasons why Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments.
"There are 3 branches of government that are beholden to the constitution."
And that constitution says federal judges are appointed, not elected. Wow you just got an education on the lost information you missed attending a teabagging function. What con school did you attend?
"Now please google the constitution and tell us the FIRST THREE WORDS of the constitution."
I did. It reads "we the people", not "we the majority", so the original point stands, and yours doesn't.
These people are just obsessed with gayness.
"Hahaha, you were attending a gay function. And I bet you were sitting in a gay seat in a gay room drinking a gay cocktail and then you drove home in your gay car. GAAAAAAAAY".
"All legislative Powers..."
Also too. The U.S. is a representative democracy or, as some would say, a republic. It was established this way so that our leaders will be tempered by the public and regional differences will be balanced out by vote. It was not intended, as this freak seems to think, to be mob rules. And it certainly doesn't mean that everyone has to suffer if a few frightened fools shout "no!"
Even though I don't know anything about your (America) constitution I still know that judges are not allowed to speak for the majority. We learnt that in Australian school while studying the decision to allow black people to vote in varying countries.
Now OP, before you go accusing me of going to a "liberal" school, 2 things.
Judges are accountable to the law, which is the Consitution. Because humans are biased, the only way that justice could ever be blind would be if judges were loyal to the Constitution above all else. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to disagree with Congress if Congress has done something unconstitutional , you twit. You are also a twat.
Typical conservative debate tactic. If someone disagrees with you, call them a liberal or gay. Or both.
The person who wrote the first sentence is correct. Federal judges are appointed, not elected. Not to mention Supreme Court judges.
The first three words are a sentence fragment and, therefore, carry no meaning when divorced from the rest of the sentence. The sentence that makes up the preamble itself is simply a statement of purpose and carries with it no legal weight. All the legal weight comes from the later sections and articles of the document. Furthermore, the legal meaning of this document has been altered, reinterpreted, clarified, and otherwise modified through over 230 years of various legal proceedings. In other words, you are basing your premise on an incomplete portion of a legally meaningless sentence.
> FIRST THREE WORDS of the constitution.
I'm starting to think that Finnish constitution is vastly superiour to the US. Because it's much clearer in its wording. Observe:
> The powers of the State in Finland are vested in the people, ...
"Ah ha! It's the same thing as in USA", the fundies say. "Power to the people!"
...but then, right afterwards, it says:
> ...who are represented by the Parliament.
And then you start to remember things like how the Parliament's job is to make the laws - not to, you know, appoint the judges and see how those laws are actually enforced. Because that's an entirely different ballgame.
And suddenly, I'm happy that elected officials are debating the laws. Because if "people" ran the courts, then we'd just end up dealing with every crime on case-by-case basis and we'd have absolutely no consistent legislation at all. If people instead decide on the laws, that's how we achieve consistency and justice.
I don't believe people like this have any notion of the history, meaning and function of the US Constitution. It's a just some kind of magic book to them. And, just like their other magic book, they've never read it; they just assume it agrees with them, because, after all, they're always right, aren't they?
One, how is this fundie? Two, judges aren't meant to be accountable to the people, especially the Supreme Court. That's why they are appointed by the President and serve for life. You can make the argument that it shouldn't be that way, but you can't make the argument the founders wanted it that way, because they clearly didn't. But it's okay to disagree with what the founders wanted, that's why we have the amendment system.
Beholden to the Constitution =/= beholden to the majority.
Wow you need an education on reading comprehension. And the Constitution isn't all that keen on majority rule, either. Read how Federal government representatives are elected. Ever heard of the Electoral College?
The Founders established the three branches of the government and the Constitution the way they did because they realized that they couldn't trust the people to always do things in the best interest of the country as a whole.
Judges are indeed beholden to your constitution. Populist douchebags like you aren't. The job of a judge is to test laws and ordinances against the constitution and throw out everything not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Because they cannot do their job if they can be replaced as populist morons like you see fit, they are not elected. Being elected would mean appealing for votes based of what is popular at the moment, instead of what is lawful and constitutional. This ensures that even in hectic and troubled times, the constitution survives as well as intended.
Montesquieu just had glorious anal sex with you and your arguement and is smoking a fag, while you are all butthurt.
The first three words of the US constitution proclaim the basis of legitimacy for the law(s) that follow. It states that said legitimacy is based on the power of the body of the people in and of itself and not e.g. on the power of a monarch who claims to rule "through God's grace" (dei gratia) or of a military which rules by force, etc.
In return, every member of that body of people is accountable **to that law**. This is the normal balance of rights vs. obligations, i.e. for every right one has, there is a complimentary obligation, and vice versa.
Accordingly, the three branches of government are accountable to the law. The will of the majority is channeled by the provisions of the law and is not a spasmodically spontaneous free-for-all.
The very existence of the constitution is the basis of our democracy. Without it there would be anarchy.
Because the authors of the constitution knew that when you're writing a document on which your government system will be based, you want to lay out the of responsibilities and duties of the government in the preamble, and save the meat of the document for talking about idoeology and founding principles.
Trendy phrases, cut and paste quotes with no context, and jingoisms seem far more relevant to this crowd than any whole and complete document or argument.
"Four feet good, two feet bad!"
That sort of thing.
A Christian really should know better about the problems of judges listening to mobs. But hey, who was this Jesus guy anyway?
More to the point, however, the majority can't just set up whatever law it chooses. The purpose of society is to better guarantee the rights of man, and these are not up for change by popular will. That's why we have a bloody Constitution, and why it can't be changed by simple majority: not just to protect democracy from itself, but to protect individual rights from those who can make and use laws.
Edit: Robespierre forgot to sign this
Besides the obvious obliviousness to the rest of the constitution that Billy here displays, there's this: why the hell would anyone be talking about the Constitution at a "homo function," unless that function was about making same-sex marriage legal? Does Bill here talk about the Constitution at every "hetero function" he goes to - assuming he even gets to go to any*?
* Probably not, unless he's convinced some poor, brainwashed woman to marry him and be his baby-making machine.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
