September 29, 2020

CBS and the Courts

I have a solution for the whole Dan Rather crisis.  I think that CBS should get a new line at the beginning of 60 Minutes.  “One of these stories is false, can you guess which one?”  Then at the end they could tell you which one.  That way, people could be skeptical, trying to guess which one the whole time.  Maybe they could tie it in with the CBSNews.com website so that you could put in your guess.  If they would make it so you could win CBS gear or something maybe the brand could be healed.

There’s a story in the news about some legislation that is going nowhere, but has a lot of potential.  The legislation is the bill to protect the pledge of allegience from judicial review.  The democrats are screaming that

  1. It’s a moral issue that they have to go on the record about before an election.
  2. That it hurts judicial review which we’ve had for 200 years

I think the second one is more interesting.  If we were to start eroding the court’s power to review legislation (particularly on abortion, homosexuality, Christianity, etc.) then the left could not legislate from the bench.  That would make the court appointees less of an issue, and maybe we could fill the benches back up with judges instead of all of this filibustering.

To clarify, the Democrats are filibustering because of how important those positions are– because we have a judicial system who thinks that we like in an  oligarchy instead of a democratic-republic.  Take away their importance in making these unpopular decisions and voila, the filibuster could disappear too.

(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)

2 thoughts on “CBS and the Courts

  1. Tough question. Judicial review of legislation is extremely important. It’s a “check” in the system of “checks and balances” that keeps one part of government from imposing unconstitutional legislation or grabbing too much power. It’s essential that the courts have the power to review legislation in light of the constitution. The problem is that in doing so, the courts have often imposed their own political or moral agendas in striking down legislation when a strict reading of the constitution would have upheld the legislation. Quite a dilema.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge