RE: The US Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

["Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>]

Title: Message

Tom,

 

You are wrong on this one. "The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that election laws should be "liberally construed" to provide a "full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey."

 

See CNN's report: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/elec02.nj.s.race/index.html

 

This is a classic example of justices taking the law into their own hands.

 

The federal constitution mandates the state legislatures set the terms of federal elections. New Jersey legislature set the ballot requirements as be frozen 51 days before the election. It does not provide for an equitable remedy to change the ballot after that point in time. The federal constitution also does not mandate that a competitive Republican and Democratic nominee must appear on the ballot.

 

I chose this example because election laws are supposed to be black and white, clear and strictly construed so the integrity of the election is upheld. Even in this very basic black-and-white example, the judges thought they knew better than the explicit rule of law.

 

Dale Courtney

Moscow, Idaho (pro-choice: education, that is)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hansen [mailto:thansen@moscow.com]
Sent: Sunday, 17 November, 2002 06:14
To: Dale Courtney; 'Vision2020'
Subject: RE: The US Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

Mr. Courtney -

 

The New Jersey Supreme Court simply decided not to decide. 

 

Just like the US Supreme Court, each state supreme court has the power to select which cases they will hear and which cases they will not hear.  The New Jersey Supreme Court simply set aside that case.  No ruling, no interpretation.

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Courtney [mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:57 AM
To: 'Vision2020'
Subject: RE: The US Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

Tom,

 

I think that the real issue here is one of "judicial activism" verses "judicial restraint".

Case in point: the New Jersey law that says you cannot replace a candidate on the ballot within  51 days of the election. It is not up to the judges to decide that the law is bogus and need not be followed; that's up to the Legislature.

 

Would you say that the New Jersey judges were interpreting the law when they set it aside?

 

Dale Courtney

Moscow, Idaho

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hansen [mailto:thansen@moscow.com]
Sent: Thursday, 14 November, 2002 18:12
To: Vision2020
Subject: The US Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

Greetings Visionaires -

 

For those of you who believe that there is no room in the US Constitution for interpretation (you, too, Mr. Harrell), here is a link to one of the pages on the US Supreme Court website.  You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader prior to clicking on the link below.  This requirement is not part of any Liberal "Elitist" conspiracy.  The documents that the Court wishes to share with you are formatted as portable data files (pdf) and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to access them.

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

 

Once you get to that page, click on the link titled "The Court and Constitutional Interpretation".

 

For those of you who understand the branches of government and how they work, sorry about the interruption.

 

I now return you to regular programming,

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow

 

****************************************************************

Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time off for good behavior?
-- New York Senator James H. Donovan commenting on capital punishment.

 

****************************************************************