tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post5453218580961391148..comments2009-05-19T10:58:26.163-05:00Kay Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-78200643487515893322009-05-19T10:58:26.163-05:002009-05-19T10:58:26.163-05:00Wait, I'm confused. Why do you hate the judicial branch?<br /><br />Because your vision of the judiciary's role in the political realm is pretty disturbing. Truth be told, it sounds like you basically don't <I>have</I> a role to give them.<br /><br />Because the entire point of the judiciary is that, occasionally, they get to emasculate the legislature. None of those precious liberties in the Constitution would be the least bit useful, if someone didn't have the power to rein in legislators when they violated their constitutional authority.<br /><br />But, of course, it's difficult to tell how democratically electing judges ensures that they'll do that. The average citizen just doesn't know a great deal about the principles of legal interpretation and judicial review, and it's a lot more likely that voters electing judges will end up picking people on the basis of political desires unrelated to questions of interpretation and judicial candor.<br /><br />(And there are going to be times when laws are passed that infringe some citizens' constitutional rights but that most other citizens <I>support.</I> A good judge ought to strike such laws down; an elected one could lose his job for doing so.)<br /><br />And, if we're going to do it like that, we might as well just spend more time electing legislators, in the first place.N.S. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00594978546540226304noreply@blogger.com