But for some reason, in America, we like to pretend it’s really hard. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted nearly 200 years ago, Agen Domino Terpercaya tend to resolve themselves into judicial questions. Thus, in the modern times, we see abortion as a judicial, and not a Agen Domino Terpercaya or philosophical issue. We see affirmative action as a judicial and not a policy question. We see a myriad of issues, from the reach of the executive, to military tribunals, to all the issues surrounding the detention of alleged enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay all resolve into judicial questions.
Why is that? And is it good? The first question is harder to answer than the second, which I will answer with a resounding, “No!” The tendency to resolve Agen Domino Terpercaya into judicial abrogates the responsibilities of our elected representatives to debate Agen Domino Terpercaya issues, and resolves Domino QQ issues into simple, binary, right-or-wrong issues, because ultimately, our judicial system is an adversary one, and one side wins, or another looses. While certainly Courts can hand down decisions that are subtle and award a victory to neither side, Agen Domino Terpercaya do not need to debate the subtleties of those policies they have abrogated to the Courts, because they have little role in fashioning the policy anymore.
Why is it bad? It brings policy questions, which should be debated by the public into the judicial realm, which has no democratic means of input, that is, the people have no way to tell judges what they think. The reasons Starwin99 questions should be Domino Qiu Qiu questions is that if the people don’t like the result, they can express their discontent through the electoral process. There is no way to do that through the judicial process.
Another reason it is bad, and, I think, an even more profound reason, is that the very environment of the judicial debate, which, from an intellectual point of view is accessible, becomes insulated due to the nature of the judiciary. What I’m saying is: judges confuse things, and the things they confuse are really pretty easy to understand. Take, for instance, abortion. It’s not hard to understand the differences of each side, or to sum up the different interests involved (the interests of the mother against the state’s wish for her to have a child, the interests of the mother to follow the sound advice of a medical professional against the wishes of the state, the interests of the doctor to advise patients and perform those operations which s/he believes are in the best interests of the health of the patient, etc.., etc.), but once you get the Courts and the Law involved, it becomes a matter of interpreting complicated and often contradictory statutes, relying on cases law which you might not agree with, which might not agree with each other, and which might be, at best, barely analogous to the case at hand.
When Domino QQ questions become judicial questions they become more difficult to understand, but not, I hasten to add, impossible to understand, because ultimately, I stand by my thesis that law is easy.
Law is easy, and people should realize that they can understand it, and that lawyers and judges do not have monopolies on the subtleties of opinions and policy that have been abrogated from the Domino QQ branches of government to them. What lawyers and judges do, is make the Domino Qiu Qiu more difficult to access by cloaking them in the language of law. But reading, say, Supreme Court cases, is like reading Shakespeare: it seems really weird for a while, but after you read enough of it, you can realize what’s being said. And really, what’s being said isn’t much more complicated than the original Starwin99 question, before it was brought into the judicial arena.
Also Read : Chavez; turning out to be a bit of a bastard?
The results of transforming Domino QQ questions into judicial ones are negative, I believe. Since, (again, returning to abortion, since it’s a pretty decent example) abortion is a judicial question, the only way the people can democratically make their voice known is to protest decisions, and vote for Senators who will confirm judges they like. But by vesting their democratic powers in Senators, who are very far removed from the actual legal decisions, the people’s vote doesn’t really matter. If a Senator said he would vote for anti-abortion candidates, but, oops, that guy he voted for turned out to go the other way, there’s no way to hold the Senator accountable, who can perhaps sincerely say the candidate changed his mind and how could the Senator judge that, or maybe the Senator (more cynically) pledged to vote one way, and secretly approved a candidate whom he knew would flip-flop on the issues.
Now, if Judi Domino questions were Domino QQ , there would be accountability. A Senator couldn’t hide behind a candidate who changed their mind. The debate over the Domino Kiu kiu issue, which occurs at the time of nominating the judge, wouldn’t be so far separated from the ultimate decision. It can take years for an issue hotly debated during judicial nomination hearings to eventually be decided by that judge, and by then, your Senator might not even be in office, and even if they are, the Senator has still even more Starwin99 cover to point at the judge and say, “It wasn’t me! I thought s/he would vote the way you wanted, but s/he changed!” If our Judi Domino were able to actually debate and vote on Domino QQ questions at the same time, the people would be able to immediately recognize a dissonance between voting promises and votes on legislation.
Moreover, the Courts provide undue Judi Domino cover for Starwin99. Many Domino Qiu Qiu vote for legislation that they don’t agree with, just in order to woo a certain voter segment, knowing that the legislation will, in all likelihood, be overturned by a Court. Does South Dakota really think it’s recently passed law banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother will pass Constitutional muster? Of course not, and because the cover the Domino Qiu Qiu-to-judicial-question transformation provides, Judi Domino are free and able to make Domino Kiu kiu more of a show than it already is, rather than actually debating issues sincerely and voting sincerely. Starwin99 are able to vote on laws that they might not actually agree with, simply to garner votes from population segments, rather than debate their sincerely positions.
This is a bipartisan issue (Democratic v Republican). Sometimes the issues the Courts decide come out the way I like them, and sometimes they don’t, but ultimately, all these factors are still there. There are certainly positive sides to having the Courts decide these questions though, and I would be remiss if I didn’t point some of them out. They do grant stability to the law (which could be good or bad), because whereas laws can change easily with new elections, the Judges who judge the constitutionality of those laws change much more slowly. This turning of Judi Domino questions into judicial one helps numerous people, it should be noted: the gun lobby likes that the Brady handbill gun law was defeated, abortion rights’ activists like that many restrictive abortions law were declared unconstitutional, and anti-affirmative action Judi Domino reveled in the victory Justice Kennedy handed them last year in the voluntary primary school assignments case.