Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
First, to the extent minority rights are infringed upon by a state law or constitution, it is subject to review within the US federal court system. So there's that vital layer of protection.
Second, relying only upon an additional "layer" of protection, minority rights are protected by the state Constitution, but what you are asking is whether the state supreme court justices should stand above the state constitutions. That's weird. So the question is, what if the State Constitution does not infringe upon the US Constitution but infringes upon somebody's idea of minority rights? Well, that isn't necessarily unlawful and not the job of state justices to impose their idea of minority "rights".
|
Thanks.
If this is such a blatant violation of the state/federal judicial process, then why has it gotten this far? The article implies that the current review is not such an extraordinary event.