No More Legislating From The Bench

By Keeping Federal Judges In Their Place.

sponsored by Rachael • Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Government
secondary topics: Legal System

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
73%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Our Founding Fathers were clear in their idea of a separation of power when they established the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Government.

In America's history, many examples of federal judiciaries making law instead of interpreting existing law toward the issue in question are present. The Supreme Court is more powerful today than Congress which upsets the balance of power.

Creating a bill that would limit the Supreme Court to merely interpreting the law instead of voting to effect change based on their political ideology would ensure continued separation of power and maintain what the Founding Fathers established.

Judicial impartiality is the backbone of the judicial system. Without it, America is not a superior example of impartial law.

Op-eds

A Judicial Mistake

by Manny on 10/04/11

It is a shame that the Supreme court reversed itself on the position of corporations being persons, and then giving them unlimited power in our elections by being able to contribute to political campaigns without any constraints.

In my opinion this ruling now gives the IRS the authority to charge personal income tax rates to corporations.(Bet they won't like that!!)

Similarly, since a corporation is now technically a "person", that "person" can only contribute $100 for each corporation to any politician or party for one, and only one, election within 6 months of that election date. This will limit their campaign contributions and influence rather than expanding them.

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here