|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Question Re: Partial-Birth Abortion | by webwalrus | 2003-11-06 06:37:25 |
| Okay, here's a different thought. |
by ragman |
2003-11-06 13:26:12 |
Or I hope so. I haven't had time to peruse the thread to see if someone else has brought this up, so if I'm ringing, apologies.
Despite what I (or anyone else) think of the law, I think the federal judge who issued the injunction against it is overstepping his authority.
Lately, it seems like we've seen a lot of cases where a legislature (state or federal) passes a controversial law and its opponents are automatically granted an injunction by a judge.
Pardon me, but shouldn't there be an actual court case representing people who have suffered a loss of constitutional rights as a direct result from this law before a judge can throw it out of court? It seems like the judicial branch is walking all over the realm of the legislative branch when they make these snap decisions at the behest of politically-motivated opponents to legislation.
I mean, why do we even bother legislators if any law that passes can simply be voided by the judiciary before it's even put into place? To me, it sounds like the judiciary is making law when they do that.
Of course, my views on the topic could be seen as coloring my opinion here, but I find myself just as upset when it works in favor of laws I would otherwise support. I see it as a further erosion of the structure that the government is supposed to have.
Has anyone else pondered this? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
The injunction was granted on behalf of | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 13:52:21 |
|
Saw this late... | by ragman | 2003-11-07 07:03:27 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
