Weird spin on the judiciary

[LittleClarkie]

Listening to talk radio today, the pundit in question was going on about Roe v Wade, what a terrible law it was, how it was a mistake for the SCOTUS to have taken the case, and about how the concept of abortion had never had a chance to be voted on democratically by the people. The point seemed to be that it was undemocratic somehow.

That last bit made me turn off the radio and think. No, it hadn't been voted on.

But the judiciary is part of our democratic system. And the decisions of judges have never been open to debate. Can you imagine if we were allowed to vote on judgements?

Of course this was part of a rant re: the activist judges and a judiciary "out of control" yadda yadda.

But of course, most of us realize that what they want is NOT impartial judges, or else whether or not they're Conservative would not matter. What they want is activist judges FROM THEIR SIDE.

Anyway, just wanted to get that out...

[LittleClarkie]

1. Just wanted to clarify, then I'll let this puppy sink again

if it's going to.

It was the idea that the judiciary branch of the governement is somehow anti-democratic that shocked me. For pete's sake, it's part of a democratic government. How COULD it be anti-democracy?

I'm not sure this guy would want it put up for a vote anyway, since last I heard, pro-choice folks were still in the majority. Somehow, I'm sure he'd spin that too, if the vote he seems to want didn't go his way.

It's Rush, btw. I didn't want to include that at first, because the discussion doesn't end up being about the issue, but him instead, and why folks would listen to him.

He's still pissing and moaning about Meirs, btw. I guess Robertson will have to denounce him too.