Newsies...

[elfs]

Hey, technoshaman, check out The Language Police, a new book about how school textbooks are authorized and written in the United States. Various textbook approval committees have banned stereotypes such as "whites living in affluent neighborhoods," or "boys expressing anger"; others have forbidden "snowman" and "forefather" on the grounds that they're sexist. One parent successfully got her daughter's grade overturned on the grounds that, since she lived in Chicago, she was unfairly disadvantaged by a writing assignment that asked her to imagine life on the ocean.

---

Ugh. Someone tell me that multiculturalism deserves a snowflakes's lifespan in a cyclotron after they read this.

---

Bwahahaha. Al Qaeda tells the boys back home, "Yeah, we caused the U.S. blackout. Don't pay attention to the news from the U.S. There was looting in the streets. New York now looks like Bagdhad."

---

The Baptist Press is reporting that Alan Keyes has spoken in defense of Roy Moore's Ten Commandments Monument, claiming that the First Amendment clause, as it is written, applies only to the Federal Government and not the states, and that states are free to implement whatever religious oaths and tests that they deem acceptable, to authorize state churches, and to make religious statements.

Someone remind Keyes of the following very important words:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

A Norwegian man who discovered his friends were throwing him a surprise party decided to turn the tables and surprise them by lighting off his shotgun into the air. But he tripped and shot six of his friends instead. A likely excuse.

---

The Lord works in mysterious ways. At least, that's what's being said about the death of Hitoshi Nikaidoh, who was decaptitated in a freak elevator accident at St. Joseph Hospital in Texas just days before he was due to be sent to Africa as part of a Christian Mission.

Comments

Re: Have to agree, actually

[wendor.livejournal.com]

Yes, this system works well when the statute is grossly contradictory to existing precedent.

But what about the situation in question.....when the ruling (precedent) is grossly contradictory to the statute?

What do we do when the court's "interpretation of a statute" strays from the actual text of the statute into the realm of extending the existing statute beyond it's original scope and thus creating new law out of whole cloth? The obvious answer is to appeal that ruling.....an answer that works fine as long as the impropriety takes place at a level lower than the US Supreme Court. If the Justices of the US Supreme Court are corrupted by their own absolute power there is no legal recourse.

Re: Have to agree, actually

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

What do we do when the court's "interpretation of a statute" strays from the actual text of the statute into the realm of extending the existing statute beyond it's original scope and thus creating new law out of whole cloth?

Well, when a statute is quite vague there are two options:
1) repeal the statute
2) create or revise case law to define it.
Again though this is up to the court in question and gets back to your dilemma of how do you change the highest courts decision. You don't. You wait until we get new SC Justices on the bench or until public policy has changed such that the current justices are making different types of decisions, and bring the matter up in the next similar case.

It's not perfect, but I don't know how to fix it either. I certainly prefer our system to ones like that of France where the courts have no leeway at all if there is no statute to cover the question. In those instances a wronged party cannot achieve justice because, as they operate, if there is no statute governing the situation there is no wrong done.

Re: Have to agree, actually

[wendor.livejournal.com]

And again we're back to the problem of allowing the same people to decide if the statute is vague enough to rquire interpretation that benefit from interpreting it.

Re: Have to agree, actually

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

Um, that's what I just said.

And again for solutions:
1) Move for impeachment (for SC Justices the SC does not try the case, Congress does - no I don't know the process well enough to describe it);
2) Create a bill to limit the terms of SC Justices;
3) Wait for a vacancy on the bench and fill it with someone who better reflects the wishes of the people.

Re: Have to agree, actually

[wendor.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the problems with those 3 are:

1. Basically impossible to impeach SC Justices without proof of an indictable criminal act.

2. Constitution specifies term for Federal judiciary....so changing it would require an Amendment.

3. Live with the damage for 20-30 years.