Judges have been changing the law all over the country for a while now. That is called legislating from the bench. Hopefully, a lot of judges will be replaced soon with judges who do enforce the law.
I agree, go back to the law before the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, went against all jurisprudence and what was by far the accepted mainstream legal consensus, amd eliminate the individual right to gun ownership, as it was for almost 200 years in the US.
If the higher appellate court upholds this decision, then the judge didn’t act above or outside the law, or attempt to legislate from the bench. The judge held the constitution of the state of North Dakota prohibits laws like the one the ND legislature enacted. Constitutions are laws with higher authority than state statutes. If the judge is upheld, then the legislature is the one that acted improperly, not the judge. The judge will have fulfilled the highest purpose of a judge, which is to enforce the laws of the state. That is, the judge will have enforced the law of North Dakota.
Its worth noting that such laws restricting damages in medical malpractice cases, or limiting the ability to bring such cases, have been routinely struck down across the country on similar grounds and on other grounds, such as unconstitutionally limiting access to the courthouse, a right enshrined in most state constitutions.
So, if this decision is upheld, and I don’t know if it will be, then it is you folks who will need to get the law, in this case the state’s constitution, changed.
Tim nailed the issue completely. Even activist judges are generally acting within the scope they think they are legally entitled to operate within. If the judge believed the law to be unconstitutional then they did the right thing by striking it down. It will, I suppose, hinge on what the higher courts decide.
@Tim; the judges ruling will only hold up in liberal states. Note Florida’s struggle with this issue over the last decade resulted in similar limitation – – – on what I believe was a 1 judge vote margin (4-3?) the last time it was considered by seven? members of their highest court (the name of which I don’t recall at the moment). So, to say this is a general philosophy of judges is insincere, at the least.
Why does this judge think they are above the law? The law says $500,000. If you don’t like the law get it changed. She can’t just change the law.
Judges have been changing the law all over the country for a while now. That is called legislating from the bench. Hopefully, a lot of judges will be replaced soon with judges who do enforce the law.
I agree, go back to the law before the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, went against all jurisprudence and what was by far the accepted mainstream legal consensus, amd eliminate the individual right to gun ownership, as it was for almost 200 years in the US.
@UW; LOL! logic and facts aren’t your strong point.
Gun ownership wasn’t ‘legislated from the bench’.
The article topic is ‘med mal liability award limitations’
Enjoy your solo journey down another rabbit hole.
If the higher appellate court upholds this decision, then the judge didn’t act above or outside the law, or attempt to legislate from the bench. The judge held the constitution of the state of North Dakota prohibits laws like the one the ND legislature enacted. Constitutions are laws with higher authority than state statutes. If the judge is upheld, then the legislature is the one that acted improperly, not the judge. The judge will have fulfilled the highest purpose of a judge, which is to enforce the laws of the state. That is, the judge will have enforced the law of North Dakota.
Its worth noting that such laws restricting damages in medical malpractice cases, or limiting the ability to bring such cases, have been routinely struck down across the country on similar grounds and on other grounds, such as unconstitutionally limiting access to the courthouse, a right enshrined in most state constitutions.
So, if this decision is upheld, and I don’t know if it will be, then it is you folks who will need to get the law, in this case the state’s constitution, changed.
Tim nailed the issue completely. Even activist judges are generally acting within the scope they think they are legally entitled to operate within. If the judge believed the law to be unconstitutional then they did the right thing by striking it down. It will, I suppose, hinge on what the higher courts decide.
Addendum; TrumPresident is replacing / appointing judges at a record pace across the US with conservative justices.
@Tim; the judges ruling will only hold up in liberal states. Note Florida’s struggle with this issue over the last decade resulted in similar limitation – – – on what I believe was a 1 judge vote margin (4-3?) the last time it was considered by seven? members of their highest court (the name of which I don’t recall at the moment). So, to say this is a general philosophy of judges is insincere, at the least.