Social/political blogging

[teddywolf]

Some groups can't give it a rest.

Apparently there's now a motion at the Federal level contending the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts tried to break the system of checks and balances. That is so wrong on the face of it that it should be laughed out of court.

I wonder why these groups haven't said anything about Bush refusing to give detainees access to a lawyer or a trial?

Comments

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Well, unlike acrobatty I Am Not A Lawyer. That said, I suspect the idea these jokers have is that since the SJC gave legal guidelines to the state Legislature regarding what they would view as acceptable that they were "writing the law".

There's a long history in the US of judges striking down a law but giving guidelines to what they would view as an acceptable law. If somehow this group wins its challenge, something I consider unlikely in the extreme but cannot deny *could* happen, they are opening up a humongous can of worms and a lot more litigation. Yet from what I can tell this is not something that the vast majority of lawyers would want, despite the fact that going to court is the bread and butter of many a lawyer.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I am toally fed up. If the federal government, in absence of any law giving them a right to do so, tries to overrule our marriage laws, maybe it is time to secede.

[dustriderma.livejournal.com]

does somebody want to declare independance?! I sure as hell do... but wait... why did I come to US to begin with...

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Even more to the point -- the Legislature requested guidance on what the SJC would likely find acceptable in followups to its initial ruling. My mother always said "Don't ask if you can't bear to hear any answer."

One wonders whether a certain subset of these had mothers, or are, as sergeant-lice, parthenogenetically generated.