![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Federal courts have gone wrong in our history where
they have shown undue deference to popular will (supporting
slavery and racial segregation, for example) or to the
president and Congress (supporting internment of the
Japanese in World War II, for example). We need courts that
are willing to render unpopular opinions to protect
fundamental liberties." -- Pia Lopez,
2005-04-24 (thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
twistedchick for
linking to it)
(no subject)
(no subject)
That was both unpopular, mostly in the north, and the wrong thing, and also at the time the constitutionally correct ruling.
(no subject)
The ending of slavery was a job for congress, in the long run, and the suspension of it for a short term period was the job of the executive branch. That is why the 13th admendment was needed to make the actions of Lincoln legal.
The inturnment of Japanize in WW2 was constitutional as a war power of the executive branch much the same as the temp. suspension of the slavery was constitutional for Lincoln to do. But if it had extended beyond that presidents rule with out a law passed it would have been unconsitutional.
The trouble is the vague idea of "fundamental liberties" and the wrong idea that the job of the Supreme Court is to "protect fundamental liberties". The job of the Supreme Court is the "Uphold the constitutional" even with moderal liberal understanding it is to "rule if something is constitutional". If the contitution is unfair somewhere it is the job of congress to pass admandments to make it fair.
(no subject)
Sounds mighty subjective