The call is made by the “Voice Of The People”, through those we elect to the Legislature. If these officials make the decisions we like, we re-elect them. If not, they’re fired come the next election. The courts should interpret and then decide if it is constitutional (legal or illegal), period. It is not their (the court) function to make the law.
I agree.
I would say it is. If the legislature’s intent is for no one to be denied equal protection except young people, or if the definition of “equal protection” they had in mind did not include age, then they can clarify it with an amendment. As it stands, treating 10 year olds the same as 20 year olds is a reasonable, if unpopular, interpretation of equal protection, and IMO the court would not be out of line if they chose to embrace it.
Bring it on. Frist hasn’t got the votes, and if he loses this fight too, his presidential aspirations are toast. Besides, even if he does manage to pull it off, it will serve the Democrats well when we take back the Senate in '06, and the Pubs get hoist by their own petard. Win/Win.
I would say, yes, any ten-year-old who wanted to bring suit to overturn this unconscionable oppression should go ahead and do so. The courts would then interpret the law and determine whether or not this was a proper or improper use of legislative power.
The judges could then write a decision, citing law and precedence, explaining why they affirmed or denied the plaintiffs case.
That’s what we pay judges to do. That’s how the system is supposed to work. And that’s what happened in MA.
Then we could debate it here on SDMB, of course.
Do the words “rational basis” ring any bells with you?
(And FYI…there is no such thing as an “unborn child”)
I would like to work out an escrow arrangement with you, and raise our stakes.
You already declined my offer.
As I understood your offer, it was to raise the stakes, but without any escrow.
As the money gets larger, I would feel more comfortable with an escrow arrangement.
I trust you, Bricker.
I appreciate it. But since I would feel more comfortable with escrow of some kind, why don’t we go ahead and agree to use it?
I would second this. The term “unborn child” is pure demagoguery. The proper term is “fetus”.
Because you apparently don’t trust me. Is it something I said?
Actually child is also an appropriate word:
Maybe I don’t trust myself. Maybe I’m afraid that I’d be tempted to not pay, and wish to avoid even the temptation of doing that by locking in my payment if I lose.
Hmmm… In 1953 the conservative wing of the Republican Party favored the nomination of a conservative Republican governor, former attorney general, who was most noted for having authority over racist internments. Strangely, the nominee that Eisenhower actually nominated took a far more liberal view than what was expected of that evil conservative Governor.
Something tells me it will be Gonzalez nominated, the shit will hit the fan as per what is expected, and he will end up a solid moderate in the Kennedy/O’Connor/Souter mold.
Well we will say, “Will not.” and Bricker will say, “Will too.”
This is one of the funnier GD OP’s. Republicans, and rather extreme ones at that, have the ear of the White House, the controllers of the House and Senate and a lot of state government politicians. And Bricker is whining?
lol good point
Oliver Twist with a gun.
“Please, sir, can I have some more? Or else?”
I like making predictions ahead of time that prove right. Last fall I had a run of luck in this area.