Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Thats not the only argument. Judges really just apply the rules, they don't make them... so if there are enough people in the executive and legislative branches pissed off, which there are a lot, they could just amend the acts and specify what qualifies as a journalist and the judiciary would just have to carry it out.
|
That's a completely different argument. You're arguing judicial control by the executive on one hand and purely legislative action on the other.
And yes, the legislative branch could go ahead and repeal the First Amendment, that's part of the US democratic system. However, they could not simply write laws that dictate what a journalist is without risking stepping on the First Amendment, and guess who would decide that?
The notion that Judges simply apply the rules may fit in traffic court, but at a level like the Supreme Court that's incredibly inaccurate. The Supreme Court is focused on interpreting complex legal situations with the decisions having broad impacts. These aren't simple situations to which a particular law, or any law at all, necessarily applies. That's how cases get to the Supreme Court.