Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
Thats a very weak argument. For your argument to be right, you would have to assume that the people didn't elect the people making the legislation that the wanted to kill all left handed people.
Bottom line is that the citizens of the country elect the official based on their values and want them to inact legislation and appoint interpretors of that legislation (judges) with the same values.
Why should one of the many minority parties demand that a judge have their values.
|
Nobody is demanding that Bush's nominee share liberal values. We know that nobody Bush nominates will be a liberal.
However, as I said, a thorough and exhaustive vetting process is what the American people deserve and should demand.
As for the people electing people who share their values, that's fine, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The founding fathers wanted to prevent the majority from trampling the rights of the minority and created a governmental system of checks and balances for precisely that purpose.
Are the people who are elected (by people who share their values) allowed to pass laws saying I no longer have the right to free speech? or freedom of religion? Or perhaps that 5th amendment is too pesky so people should be forced to incriminate themselves and NOT have the right to face their accusers?
Should they be allowed to do that? They were after all elected by a majority of the people who shared those values, so the constitution doesn't really matter right? Just majority rule?
According to your logic we should be allowed to kill all of the left handed people if that's what 50.1% of the American people want right?