Should judges be prohibited from overriding the will of the people?
- Thread starter vvvvvvv
- Start Date
What he said.
Judges can and should override the will of the people. We live in a Constitutional Republic..."popular vote" has it's limits.
If "The People" feel strongly enough about something that has Constitutional implications, they should start the process to amend the Constitution.
If "The People" feel strongly enough about something that has Constitutional implications, they should start the process to amend the Constitution.
This SHOULD be a no brainer. 
We have to be careful with the vote of the people. At some point, Veggie, you may be the minority (not limited to race) and you may not like the way a vote goes.
I already am in a minority race. Minority politics. Minority skillz...
My answer to the poll is a resounding NO by the way. Just seems there's an overwhelming "YES" in another thread... so I thought I'd ask the question in a manner where no one has to take a public position.
I think we just need a good house cleaning. No need for amendments. With the current population there's no stopping if they find out they can change the constitution. We just got a liberal buffoon re-elected by that margin.
It is part of the checks and balances system, the judges are there to rule on constitutional issues. Equal rights means no special rights for anyone. A ban on gay marriage for instance was not limiting gays from marrying, rather a special right for the heteros. If you look at it that way, it might make more sense to the one who are anti-gay marriage. Although, the anti crowd are so close-minded that it wouldn't compute anyway.
Except that such authority isn't granted to judges in the Constitution. They took that authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison.
That being said, SMS is correct on this issue. Not sure how I manage to disagree with him so often, but he's right this time.
Similar threads
