Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Do we need a Constitutional crisis
- Thread starter Phenom78
- Start date
H
heatherrae
Guest
WOW! Speechless! Surely, he isn't advocating eradicating the judicial system in favor of some monarchy? police state? dictatorship? Hell, who knows what he is thinking?
Phenom78
New member
HeatherRae said:
Actually the suggestion was to rid ourselves of a Judicial Oligarchy and return power to the representative branches of government.
Unsurprising however that a lawyer would describe "representative government" as totalitarian and oppressive in nature.
The Judiciary should be returned to the third, and least important, branch of government. Not the de facto ruler of the nation status it practices today.
S
Spartacus
Guest
heatherae must miss that 10inch thick cock she dated
Phenom78
New member
Smurfy said:lol yes.
A judge in Michigan sure told Bush, didnt she?
Beyond her really.
Words mean whatever they wish them to mean, and as a result fit any preconceived agenda they choose.
The 2000 Florida debacle was illustrative. (and I dont wish to rehash the entire legal battle)
But however else you feel about the issue.
The Legislature set a specific date by which all these matters must be resolved. It existed in advance of the e4lection.
Generally speaking when judges "do as they wish anyway" it is done by pretending that words mean something any common sense reading of the text would deny. So regardless of what was actually written, they just claim it means whatever they wish.
In this particular case they decided that a specified date actually meant something else than what was stated. So if the legislature said hypothetically Sept 9, they could just claim Sept 9 means Oct 23 or any other date they choose instead.
Why have a legislature then if the court can just disregard whatever it enacts and claim it to mean something else?
H
heatherrae
Guest
I think it is fulfilling the role as intended by the framers of the constitution intended by preventing unchecked power of the other branches. The fact that they don't have to get elected or re-elected keeps them free to make decision based upon their own interpretations of the laws. What do you suggest, having elected judges rather than appointed ones?
You may be steaming over the judge's ruling, but you can believe that it will end up in the Supreme Court. My bet is that the entire ruling will be overturned based upon lack of standing, anyway. So, no need to get yourself all in a lather, yet.
You may be steaming over the judge's ruling, but you can believe that it will end up in the Supreme Court. My bet is that the entire ruling will be overturned based upon lack of standing, anyway. So, no need to get yourself all in a lather, yet.
Phenom78
New member
HeatherRae said:
It isn't a single ruling.
I believe in checks and balances. It in fact represents the entire purpose of this thread.
What I am asserting is that there is no longer a system of checks and balances. The court has usurped the other branches and no longer is checked by them in any meaningful way. This is especially distressful because they are in fact the least representative branch of government.
Regardless of what the other two branches say, the court has been given final say. The other two branches might as well not exist for all the practical authority they are left.
We've allowed this to happen because for most of the 20th century we have bought into the notion that the court is peopled with "neutral and unbiased" arbiters of truth. That they were somehow magically superior to normal people, and more trustworthy than those in the other branches. It's insane.
It is in large measure why the SCOTUS insists on maintaining secrecy, and avoiding large scale public scrutiny, of trials which take place in its courtroom. Because familiarity breeds contemtpt. And if people could see and hear what these "Justices" were saying, they would be quickly disabused of the notion that they should in any way have some final say on anything our government does.
Phenom78
New member
bluepeter said:
That's the practical difficulty. And not just with the executive.
Seperation of Powers has become near meaningless.
But with the executive (to use your example) he is ultimately accountable to the electorate (as well as the legisilative).
Worst case the people have to wait four years (unless impeached) to be removed from office.
With the Judiciary you actually have to wait for them to die. You could be waiting fourty years for correction as opposed 2-4-6 with the executive and legislative.
Phenom78
New member
bluepeter said:
He is
But as you know once appointed they are not.
I dont know how the process works in Canada, but it has become a joke here in the US. It has become a battle to find the most obscure "lack of a paper trail" nominee.
Any actually great legal scholar would be immediately rejected as having too much in writing to pass scrutiny.
If you are boring and have never said much you're in.
Phenom78
New member
bluepeter said:
Certainly partisan
But only a recent reality.
The reason being that it is precisely because the Court has become so powerful in comparison to its historical role that the nomination process has become more bitter and partisan. The Court is effectively legislating by other means, so what were once relatively unimportant proceedings have become the most important appointments in government.
plifter
Banned
Phenom78 said:
Why have a judicial branch when our President willfully chooses to ignore their authority. Keep in mind that our government is set up so that one branch cannot become too powerful. That's where the other branches come in to play. Their job is to prevent another branch from asserting more power than they are entitled to.The Judicial Branch upholds the laws. If a current law is not adequate, it's the job of the Legislative Branch to change the law. Having 3 powerful branches of government is what keeps us from having a dictator in charge.
javaguru
Banned
Administrative law is the least representative. At least a Justice on the Supreme Court must be nominated by the president and confirmed. The IRS has told congress to go f**k themselves on numerous occasions when congress took issue with an IRS ruling on the tax code. Most of the regulations/laws we must abide by in the US are made by beuracrats and not congress. The whole point of the Supreme Court and the Constitution is to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority which has not always worked. Lincoln and FDR both told the Supreme Court to F**k off when they ruled against their executive orders. Methinks the executive branch is much more powerful today than most of the founding fathers intended.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Okay, I'll bite. But how would you suggest making it better?Phenom78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
He's meaning that the Legislative branch and the Executive Branch consist of elected members, I think. So, he is calling those two branches "representative branches." I guess that is his point.gjohnson5 said:
S
Spartacus
Guest
I need a dirty woman
H
heatherrae
Guest
Oh, I need a dirty woman....4everhung said:
now you have that damn song going through my head.
Waiting for phenom's suggestion to "fix" the judicial branch of government...
This country would be better if every final decision went through me.
S
Spartacus
Guest
I think I want to kill mysefl
does anyone remember vera linn?
does anyone remember vera linn?
gjohnson5
New member
In this post you mention the 2000 Florida "debacle". This should have been handled by state officials. If it were , I think Al Gore would have won the state as the recounting in the most populous counties in Florida would have been Democratic countines... So by the first few posts of yours , it is not clear what you are talking about.
Phenom78 said:
gjohnson5
New member
Phenom78 said:
But anyway back to the point. I think interpretation of the law should NOT revolve around political party lines. Unfortunately this is how it's done now.
The only people who want a "constitutional crisis" or republicans who get a judge who had liberal views and the rulings don't go thier way. Let's just be honest about it
Phenom78
New member
I guess you missed the whole "Bush was selected, not elected" crap since 2000
I guess unlike Jesse you didn't feel "Bush whacked"
You should also tell all those protestors at the Alito and Roberts hearings to take their "republican" asses back home and stop whining.
And for the record.
There was an independent recount in Florida after the election. Several in fact
Gore still lost in those as well
Deal
I guess unlike Jesse you didn't feel "Bush whacked"
You should also tell all those protestors at the Alito and Roberts hearings to take their "republican" asses back home and stop whining.
And for the record.
There was an independent recount in Florida after the election. Several in fact
Gore still lost in those as well
Deal
milo hobgoblin
New member
simply put, supreme court justices should be elected by the people.. not appointed by some retarded fucking chimp.
Phenom78
New member
rnch said:
You and most of the democratic party would never vote for a Truman any longer.
And when all is said and done, Clinton will be nothing more than an unremarkable footnote in history.
What your grandfather should have taught you was that every war time President is generally reviled in his time. Its only in the history books, long after the wars are over, that they are remembered with adoration.
They wanted to send Washington home to his pantation and replace him.
Lincoln's own party wanted to dump him before the election.
and so on and so on
gjohnson5
New member
First off I don't like Bush's policies especially for the foreign one.
Secondly the Supreme Court did not allow local policy makers to do things their way in Florida so yes , Selected not Elected is a good way of looking at it...
I would need to look into how the recounts were done. This was the whole issue in the first place as to why the Supreme Court overruled the local folks recounting.
I don't believe recounting already counted votes was the issue, I think the issues were dimple chad , pregnant chads and double chads.
So no I refute the idea that Bush won in the recount without those questions answered.
So this endless right wing bickering needs to stop.
Secondly the Supreme Court did not allow local policy makers to do things their way in Florida so yes , Selected not Elected is a good way of looking at it...
I would need to look into how the recounts were done. This was the whole issue in the first place as to why the Supreme Court overruled the local folks recounting.
I don't believe recounting already counted votes was the issue, I think the issues were dimple chad , pregnant chads and double chads.
So no I refute the idea that Bush won in the recount without those questions answered.
So this endless right wing bickering needs to stop.
Phenom78 said:
S
Spartacus
Guest
bikinomo is around
gjohnson5
New member
rnch said:
Unfortunately the 8 trillion in debt probably will not be talked about....
1. Invading Iraq without good information
2. The lowest approval rating this centrury probably
3. His own party members selling out on him
4. his staff being busted for perjury, ostruction of justice, leaking CIA officials names
Damn , is anything good in that list....
