Posted by
Tim Blessing on Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:19:09 PM
The Rule of Law.
Do you apply the law in a cold and arbitrary way or do you invent it as you go or do you use compassion.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled for George W. Bush in the case Bush vs. Gore.
That was a arbitrary and inventive use of the Supreme Court's Power.
The Constitutional clearly state's that the House of Representatives will decide who is President in case of a legal dispute.
Or so I think from what I remember reading of the Constitution.
Compassion, cold, arbitrary, and inventive use of the Constitution or any Constitution.
The Rule of Law seems to mean that you apply the concept in an even and balanced way rather than some crazy way.
Everyone has compassion, but the balance is not there in today's court system. There is appeal after appeal.
Women get a break, while men will be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.
Compassion and coldness.
Inventive uses of the constitution like the separation of church and state or the issue of privacy. Neither concept is mentioned directly in the constitution, but Judges use the Constitution as an instrument of malleability.
In essence, the Courts need more arbitration used and less compassion. A more studied approach of the Constitution than an inventive use of the document.
Courts need to get more to the essence of the issue and rely more on the rule of law than some emotional approach.