jim baker

[Richard Dougherty]

My thanks to Sandy for his comments, and especially for his usual consistency applied now to this case. I think the way Republicans react to the court decision is important, for precisely the reasons you suggest. To speak of the rule of law as being undermined, though, doesn't strike me as attacking the principle of the rule of law, but rather attempting
to uphold it. It seems to me that one could critique the court in the proper way, using the opportunity to educate the citizenry on the principles at stake. Even winning the legal battle should not come at the expense of the law.
Herewith Publius' comment in Federalist 78, for what it's worth:  "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the
consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." (emphasis in original)

Will we hear cries of a megalomaniacal judiciary now?

Richard Dougherty
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001122/410ecffb/attachment.htm