Reply #139: The courts don't have a policy agenda

[krispos42]

The Democrats and Republicans have agendas that influence their overall lawmaking. For example, Republicans are anti-tax, and this way of thinking permeates all aspects of their legislation. They will consistantly attach tax credits, breaks, loophole, and deductions to any piece of legislation that they can if they can get away with it because they are following an ideal of some sort.

Courts don't do that. The National Association of Federal Judges don't have an annual meeting where they say "This term, we're going to gut marijuana laws", and then it's members procede to rule in favor of people caught with weed.

The judges and juries consider specific examples in specific circumstances only. Judge Diggs did not rule that domestic surveillence was illegal, only that the specific fashion that the Bush Administration was doing it was illegal.

However, that specific fashion that was ruled illegal was part of Bush's anti-terrorist policy, so Gonzi there decided that the federal bench must have some sort of agenda that is anti-Bush. I guess Gonzi is of the opinion that the since it is part of Bush's policy, is should be unquestioned and unchallenged and made both de facto law and de facto Constitutional.