RUSH: We May Be Going From ‘Rule Of Law’ To ‘Rule Of Party’

RUSH: David French, who is writing here at a blog, says, “The judges in the [2-1] majority recognized the impact of their ruling, but they also recognized their limited constitutional role. It is not the job of judges to correct perceived congressional errors or to rewrite laws…” That’s for the president to do.

Ha-ha-ha.  Just kidding. “It is not the job of judges … to rewrite laws to make them more economically sensible,” or to make them fairer or to make up for the stupidity on the part of the author of a particular law.  By the way, it “is not the IRS’s role either,” and the IRS is who ultimately went in and did this. 

The judge interprets the law as it exists, and that leads to the question we got from the caller in Cincinnati: “Wait a minute.  The law says what it says.  Why does it matter the political party of the judges?”  It shouldn’t, but it may — and if it does we now have gone from rule of law to rule of party, because if the law is determined by party loyalty…

If all you have to do to get a law changed is to have a judge from your party look at it and give it his interpretation of what you want it to be, there is no law.  We’re not dealing with law at all here.  That’s a mirage.  But the way I think they’ll do it — and we could be surprised.  I mean, four of the seven judges that are, i.e., Democrats…

Read More @

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment