Should judges be prohibited from overriding the will of the people?

[BadgeBunny]

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.

This ...

 

[Rod Snell]

No matter what you think of the current issue, the rights protected in the Constitution are there to protect the unpopular minority, not the tyrannical majority. And as gun owners, we better be glad that is so.

But the activists judges who think it is ok to re-invent the Constitution to suit THEIR political agenda threaten the basic fabric of the Republic.

I wish we had more statesmen and fewer politicians. Somehow "Power" seems to have replaced "Service to the Country."

 

[Westsidebob]

Yes, they should be able to. It's one of those double edge swords. We won't like it when they rule against something we voted for, but majority rule doesn't make it right.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

 

[henschman]

Nope... an independent judiciary is just one protection against the tyranny of the majority. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government.

 

[uncle money bags]

Nope... an independent judiciary is just one protection against the tyranny of the majority. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government.

I think people tend to forget this point when they feel they are on the losing end of a decision.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

Judicial rulings shouldn't be about popular vote or anything else, it should strictly be about weather or not it's legal, Constitutional.

But in regards to the current issue, is it Constitutional for a federal judge to strike down a state law? Because, honestly, that's my issue with the ruling. My solution to the issue is to remove government from the matter all together.

 

[twoguns?]

Judicial rulings shouldn't be about popular vote or anything else, it should strictly be about weather or not it's legal, Constitutional.

But in regards to the current issue, is it Constitutional for a federal judge to strike down a state law? Because, honestly, that's my issue with the ruling. My solution to the issue is to remove government from the matter all together.

BANG and done...

 

[R. Johnson]

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.

You have it exactly backwards. Under a ban on homosexual marriage everyone, gay and straight alike, has an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex in compliance with the equal protection clause. Legalizing same sex "marriage" creates another equal right for all people, gay and straight, to "marry" a person of the same sex. Bans on gay marriage do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Further, the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage, nor does it prevent the many states from doing so. Therefore, IAW the tenth amendment, the states have a Constitutional right to regulate marriage. What's great about the United States is that if you don't like the laws in your state you can move to a state that is better suited to your tastes.

 

[nofearfactor]

What's great about the United States is that if you don't like the laws in your state you can move to a state that is better suited to your tastes.

This is what I did.

 

[jakeman]

We live in a republic.

Majority vote doesn't rule.

What if a majority voted to outlaw firearms? Would you be okay with it then?