As I looked out my window this past weekend, I thought about the number of readers who have asked me about this window.
"I sure don't see the same thing from my window," is the comment I hear the most.
Others are not sure whether I have a magic window, poor eyesight and a runaway imagination or need to use some Windex to clear my view.
So, I decided to repeat what I wrote in that first column in 2000.
The view from my window is strictly a symbol that the column is my opinion—my view.
In that first column, I wrote that the view from your window is just as important as mine.
You should have your own view from your window.
If I stimulate some thought and discussion, I have reached my goal
Now to those judges who are distorting my view from this window.
My view of democracy is contained in that constitutional phrase "of the people, by the people and for the people."
The first assumption is the rule of the majority with recognition of the rights of each citizen.
I thought that was why we hold elections and count the ballots.
I believe ore and more judges are looking through the mirrors in a carnival fun house instead of a clean, clear glass.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently ruled that the voters of that state were less important than the power plays of the governor and partisanship in the Legislature.
Twice Nevada voters said tax increases take a two-thirds vote.
The judges said raising taxes by nearly a billion dollars to fund the increases in a state budget during a tight economy overrides the people's vote.
The courts in Arizona have decreed that schools will get more money here.
The court orders mandated the expensive school building program and more money for bilingual programs.
In California, one voter-father with a Christian daughter under the custody of the child's mother decided "under God" should not be in The Pledge of Allegiance.
Three federal judges agreed, and these appointed judges outvote the majority in a democracy again.
Supreme Court ruled last month on two cases of affirmative action for selected minorities at the University of Michigan.
They said the "diversity" issue made it OK at the U of M law school.
In the second case, the court ruled that a point system that gave bonus points to selected minorities was not legal because it became a quota system.
Sometimes judges rule both ways on the same issue.
That confuses me.
I am still trying to figure out whether Tiger Woods gets extra points added because he is half Afro American or points deducted because he is half Asian, a "smart' minority that is over-represented in universities everywhere.
The biggest fights in the U.S.
Senate are over appointment of federal judges, especially to the U.S.
Liberals know that judgeships can get things done in the courts that the majority of voters in a democracy would never support.
Conservatives know that the only way to protect the rights of the majority in this democracy is to appoint judges who will read and support the U.S.
Constitution as written.
Nevada may find a way to control their state Supreme Court.
The people elect the Nevada judges and a recall movement is in the beginning stages.
Supporters of the judges are screaming about the politicizing of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Maybe the voters in Nevada will get the last word yet.
If the majority of American voters want to take control of this democracy away from federal courts, then we must elect U.
senators and a president willing to put people on the bench who will follow the constitution rather than legislate.
In Arizona, voters have a more direct method of getting judges on the bench.
We vote for them but in too many cases, we do not take the time to evaluate what the judge stands for.
I think it is time for the majority to take note of the growing importance of judicial decisions and the increasing use of the courts to bypass the voting process in this democracy.
The balance between the law- making body, the executive branch and the judges is critical.
A democracy depends on it.
Marvin Robertson is the Miner's city beat/ business reporter.