- Thread starter
- #241
"Because judges are properly ruling anti gay laws based on nothing but animus as unconstitutional, you think reeducation camps are next?"
"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.
Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
