Our Constitution wrote:Tekania wrote:Our Constitution wrote:If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review
They can't... the review is handled via the appeals process. If his peers in the appeals court agree with him either by affirming his decision, or by refusing to hear the case because the appeal lacks merit, then it's over till the legislature acts again.
Because the appeal lacks merit? You see! This is the whole problem with the process! It should be the Judge's job to prove that the law is unconstitutional and gain the support of the other Justices to make this an action of the Judicial Branch.
Checking the power of the Legislative is a JUDICIAL BRANCH action and should require consent of the Judicial Branch before they make these motions to screw over The Voters.
Power to the People!!!!
The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).