Where exactly is this "leftist bias" conservatives complain about in the judiciary?

[Kanamori]

Oh, dear

[Papewaio]

The Consitution is subjective.

If it was set in stone then there would never have been the need to have a panel of Judges vote on particular subjects or if they voted on a 'non-changing' document it would have to be 100% for or against and then the decision becomes unchangeable just like a Papal decree.

[Kanamori]

"The Consitution is subjective.

If it was set in stone then there would never have been the need to have a panel of Judges vote on particular subjects or if they voted on a 'non-changing' document it would have to be 100% for or against and then the decision becomes unchangeable just like a Papal decree."

That's the problem; some do not like judges "declaring" how the constitution is changing, in some cases. They do not trust them, and can you really blame them? But, then again, that's why they don't have much power to enforce anything.

The irony I see is when people cite the constitution was meant to be, almost always throwing in something about the founding fathers, and then pointing to how the Courts aren't directly in check by the people, losing sight of the fact that is what the founding fathers intended.

[Xiahou]

The Consitution is subjective.

If it was set in stone then there would never have been the need to have a panel of Judges vote on particular subjects or if they voted on a 'non-changing' document it would have to be 100% for or against and then the decision becomes unchangeable just like a Papal decree.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument. That's like saying that if a criminal code is written clearly there is no need for trials for the accused. Clearly there is a need for courts- but their decisions should still be based on the letter of the law and letter of the Constitution not their personal morals or what they percieve to be a right.

[Papewaio]

Sorry, I don't buy that argument. That's like saying that if a criminal code is written clearly there is no need for trials for the accused. Clearly there is a need for courts- but their decisions should still be based on the letter of the law and letter of the Constitution not their personal morals or what they percieve to be a right.

The letter of the law is a set of rules.

The spirit of the law is justice.

Being flexible is never a bad thing... mmmmmmm gymnasts...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If it was set in stone then there would never have been the need to have a panel of Judges vote on particular subjects or if they voted on a 'non-changing' document it would have to be 100% for or against and then the decision becomes unchangeable just like a Papal decree.

Im afraid they werent given this power but took it upon themselves. Once more they should at least have a two thirds majority just like the congress to change anything. If its 5 to 4 then the original ruling of the prior court should stand and the case thrown out of the supreme court. Sort of like a hung jury. You should need 6 voted to overturn something. This would put an end to judicial tyranny. You would never get 6 of them to agree on anything

[bmolsson]

Isn't the American constitution a bit outdated these days ??