> Margaret writes:
>
> >Countries without a firm Constitution have absolutely
> >no defence against anything the lawmaking body likes to
> >do. In such countries, any law is ipso facto 'good',
> >no matter how biased or hopeless on its face. In the
> >US, grossly unfair laws generally get struck down by
> >the Supreme Court as violating one of the
> >Constitutional guarantees.
>
> really?
> it never struck me as even nearly that utopic
It's not the Constitution that's utopic, Catherine. It's whatever Margaret is smoking. One could write a very thick book indeed about Supreme Court decisions upholding grossly unfair laws, or conversely striking down eminently fair, just and humane ones. The 1990s alone would give us THREE horrid decisions on a SINGLE case: McClesky v. Kemp.
The most notorious of these three decisions ruled that statistical evidence of racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty was LEGALLY INADMISSABLE.
And, of course, the Court has also ruled in the 1990s that actual innocence is insufficient grounds to halt an execution.
So, Margaret, what IS this utopic smoking mix of yours?
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"