18 April 2008
The Justice System
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril .
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the branch of government that has the duty to keep the country on the course set by the Constitution. This worked well most of the time until the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. At that time, the Chief Justices began to judge some of their cases by their personal political yardsticks instead of the Constitution. From that time until now, the slippery slope of the manipulated judicial system has changed the course of our country.
The Heritage Foundation has stated the following goals for the judicial system which we want to share:
Rule of Law
The Rule of Law is the foundation for constitutional government and a flourishing civil society.The American justice system suffers from a prevailing judicial philosophy that treats judging as politics by another name; a dangerous trend to “over-criminalize”—that is, to criminalize conduct that is socially and economically beneficial or is better regulated by the civil justice system or administrative means; and a civil litigation system run amok by frivolous lawsuits and outrageous damage rewards.
To address these three major issues, we seek to reform the “imperial judiciary,” which usurps power that belongs to the political branches of government and wrongly interferes with Heritage’s vision for America. To do this, we must restore the courts to their constitutional role, which is to protect individual liberty, property rights, and free enterprise, and to enforce the constitutional limits on government. We also seek to reverse the dangerous trend to criminalize almost everything. To do this, we must remind legislators of the proper lines between federal and state control, and we must restore the traditional protections afforded the accused by the criminal justice system. Finally we seek to reform America’s civil justice system by restoring it to its traditional role, which is to fairly enforce contracts and property rights, justly mediate disputes involving claims of injury or damage, and follow the rules involving private disputes established by the legislature.
Mail this post
7 Comments so far...
Angela Rogin Says:
18 April 2008 at 10:00 am.
This is without a doubt one of the biggest problems in America. We work hard and get laws passed only to see a court order interfere with what the people want.
Benjamin Says:
18 April 2008 at 10:55 am.
I like to see blogs like this. So many people don’t realize things drastically changed in how the courts are run. People need education but you don’t hear about this in school.
E.E. Says:
18 April 2008 at 11:39 am.
Everyone thought FDR’s New Deal was so great because they were scared by the Depression and were willing to give up Constitutional rights for security. I think some of what the government did was justifiable but a lot of it overstepped their bounds and set the precedent for further loss of rights and the monster welfare system we have today. The judges taking powers to themselves at that time went right along with the rest of the power grab.
CindyL. Says:
18 April 2008 at 3:21 pm.
Angela, I so agree with you. It seems to me that this should be a huge focus of conservatives and not just to get the right judges. This isn’t the problem, that just makes it a tug of war. The whole attitude that Republican judges will make Republican decisions and Democrats will make Democratic decisions is all wrong. They should be following the Constitution and making decisions based on legal precedent that was based on the rule of law.
avatar Says:
19 April 2008 at 2:09 am.
Personally, I think Supreme Court justices doing their own thing goes back further than FDR, to the days of Marbury v. Madison. To me, the value of the Court is not that it rules correctly–it’s made some real bloopers at times–but that it is able to serve as a check to the power of the President and Congress. Now, a retirement age might be a good idea…
Jesse Says:
19 April 2008 at 2:16 am.
Avatar, that is suppose to be what the court does, to keep in check the powers of the other two branches, but lately it has become the power. When the voice of the people vote a law in, the court has no right to over turn that law when it is not stated in the Constitution. It is out of hand. For instance, gay marriage is not in the Constitution and overturning the people’s vote on this is plain wrong.
Jesse Says:
19 April 2008 at 2:21 am.
I have read a few different books that mention facts about the Supreme Court changing during FDR’s presidency. There is some pretty clear history on it. I’m sure there were instances of it happening before that but it became politicized by FDR. The following link tells about it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
