The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Thursday, January 19, 2006

So libs what if this judge goes activist

Newsmax is reporting that a NYC woman is asking a judge to rule that she be granted $26,000 per year to send her two children to a private school. She points out that taxpayers dole out $13,000 per year per student for public education that is substandard. (Actually I have shown sources it is closer to $15,000)

The article shows events leading to her line of reasoning:
' A judge has ruled that city public school students were being deprived of a "sound basic education,” and last year said an additional $5.6 billion a year was needed to solve the problem.

Gov. George Pataki appealed the ruling, and the budget he recently proposed fell short of the court’s demand.

"My children can’t wait,” Payne told the Post.

"To assure that my kids get a good education and a fair chance in life, they need to attend a private school.” '

The logic here is flawed. The billions the judge ruled for and Pataki appealed will not solve the problem. Only school choice and obliteration of the teacher's union and the NEA will solve the problem.

Her request, though, is in essence asking the judge to rule for her to receive a school voucher bypassing the legislature that has turned down school choice. Now I ask how liberals would react if the judge would rule using the same logic the Massachussets Supreme Court used to force gay marriage on the state? The logic being 1) There is a situation that is "unjust" 2) The legislature won't fix it so 3) I will legislate from the bench. Liberals in NYC would blow a gasket at such a move, yet liberals never mind or protest when a liberal activist court bypasses the legislature to force something they want.

I am not holding my breath on this lady's chances, but hopefully the issue of school choice will get some attention.

3 Comments:

  • At 6:03 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Sorry to comment on an old post but I just couldn't resist...

    How exactly did the Massachusetts courts "force" gay marriage? Nobody was forced to do anything against their will. By allowing the laws to reach a point of such obvious discrimination, the predominately right wing opponents of gay rights reform were the ones forcing their homophobia on the disempowered gay community.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    ok, it should have been worded "forced legalization of gay marriage".

    By allowing the laws to reach a point of such obvious discrimination

    The laws were against gay marriage from virtually day 1 of this country. They did not reach this point. If anything the trend has been more favorable to gays.

    My point in the post is that there is a separation of powers in government. Congress creates laws. The executive branch executes the laws and the judiciary interprets the law. These functions must be kept separate. If "interpretation" goes so far that it becomes creation of law then the judiciary has breached the separation of powers. This is an act stepping away from law toward chaos or anarchy. If people don't like the law they can work to change it. To make a judge a little king being able to wave a wand and change the law with a virdict is wrong. Almost all of the time this happens it is a leftist judge. What "whingeing" we would hear if a conservative judge ever did this.

     
  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    When the US was declared an independent nation, there was no need to facilitate for same sex relationships. However, society changed, and therefore the laws also needed to change. Since this has not happened, the laws have stagnated and they are, discriminatory.

    You're forgetting that the majority elected legislatures have not been the ones advocating rights and freedoms of social minorities. You owe many of your civil liberties to the courts, who, historically, have been seen as platforms for activism.

    I know this is off the topic of the initial post, but I do not think that homosexuals should have to turn to the courts in order to be treated with equality. Anything less than equality is discrimination.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home