Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
Courts aren't gods. They are essentially lawyers endowed with the ability to make their opinions binding. I am a lawyer without that ability, but this doesn't somehow make my opinion any less valid than theirs (except in so far as I would expect any judge hearing this to have a more informed and experienced view than mine). Judges have biases as well. In my opinion, it's unconstitutional.
Further to the earlier point, I can validly call a law unconstitutional even AFTER the Supreme Court determines that in their view, it isn't. The courts do get things wrong, not altogether infrequently. Just a month or so ago, the Supremes overturned one of their decisions that had been standing since 1978.
I think the difference of perspective here is that you appear to be saying that laws aren't unconstitutional until the court decides that they are. I disagree. Laws either are or are not unconstitutional on their own merits, and where they are unconstitutional a court can - and hopefully does - recognize as much and strike them down.
|
The courts aren't "gods" but they are the closest thing to it in the legal world. Yes your opinion is less valid because its not binding and you have no control in court of anything outside of your sphere of influence. I would be very interested to see you in court, call a law unconstitutional in front of a judge when case law and prior rulings deemed it constitutional.
Please explain to me what your interpretation of "validly call a law unconstitutional" means. I would agree with you if that means you sitting around with a few colleagues in your office and you gave your opinion, but certainly not in a professional setting in a court.
The whole "my opinion" approach makes me laugh. The sky is purple, no it's not, well that's my opinion.
Your argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a good law, only a law that hasn't been struck down yet.