Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Shoot all the Judges

J

jerseyart

Jaded Seal of Approval
Platinum
Sic semper tyrannis

Thus to all tyrants.

We no longer have three co equal branches of government in this country. We have an Executive Branch and a Legislature pretending to write law, and a Judicial Branch interpreting it to mean whatever the hell they feel like.

And the entire nation stands by and allwos these little Hitlers to legislate from the bench and override representative government in thsi country.

It's obscene.

The Judiciary is not...NOT...the final say on what is legal. They were never intended to be the final arbiter.

Past time the other two branches took back the control they have ceded to these meglomaniacs for the last 50 years
 
The problem with most judges is they have too much job security and therefore are untouchable and can make any decision they feel like without consequence. We need to make it easier to remove judges from the bench for poor job performance.
 
I like watching judging amy tho
 
JerseyArt said:
Sic semper tyrannis

Thus to all tyrants.

We no longer have three co equal branches of government in this country. We have an Executive Branch and a Legislature pretending to write law, and a Judicial Branch interpreting it to mean whatever the hell they feel like.

And the entire nation stands by and allwos these little Hitlers to legislate from the bench and override representative government in thsi country.

It's obscene.

The Judiciary is not...NOT...the final say on what is legal. They were never intended to be the final arbiter.

Past time the other two branches took back the control they have ceded to these meglomaniacs for the last 50 years
Click to expand...


:lmao: I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
 
UA_Iron said:
as long as they pulled the plug on the vegetable its all good.
Click to expand...


Childish statement which I'll excuse because...well...you are a child.

When you get older hopefully you'll begin to see the larger picture.
 
superdave said:
The problem with most judges is they have too much job security and therefore are untouchable and can make any decision they feel like without consequence. We need to make it easier to remove judges from the bench for poor job performance.
Click to expand...


No the problem is that our other two branches have capitulated their authority to the least representastive branch of government.

That and the fact that for 50 years liberals have packed the courts with legislatingf activists and not competent honest judges
 
UA_Iron said:
as long as they pulled the plug on the vegetable its all good.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for JA's type of judges, they'd be able to kill her alot quicker. Instead they've gotta pull the feed tube and do it the slow way.
 
jestros said:
If it wasn't for JA's type of judges, they'd be able to kill her alot quicker. Instead they've gotta pull the feed tube and do it the slow way.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Judges should not have a party affiliation either, that leaves room for misinterpretation of the law due to bias.

Oh and whats the bigger picture JA? The way you see you things?
 
BlkDragon said:
I bet you're a Savage listener. You parrot what he says in many posts.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah

I don't listen to talk radio

Conversely you must be a high school drop ouit, because the content of your posts reflects the same
 
I'm guessing that the picture is that the judges are enforcing the laws and ruling to limit the gov's authority? Or was it something else?
 
UA_Iron said:
I agree.

Judges should not have a party affiliation either, that leaves room for misinterpretation of the law due to bias.

Oh and whats the bigger picture JA? The way you see you things?
Click to expand...

The Congress and Executive Branch of this country passed legislation ordering a federal judge to review this womans case and his response was essentially "Go fuck yourself"

No one elsected this asshole. One judge in some federal court appointed because he helped raise a bunch of money for some politician in his district does not in any reasonable representative system get to tell the entire country to go diddle themselves.

If it were Carter or Clinton in power my angst would be the same. We now have a court system that dismisses even the most clear legislation and just interprets it to mean whatever the hell they wish.

If that doesnt concern you then you have no appreciation of how our government works, or the consequnces of legislating by fiat.

Our system of government is premised on 3 equal branches reviewing and checking one another. We no longer have that in this country. The entire nation could pass a Constitutional Amendment tomorrow and a relative handful of people can simply choose to pretend it doesnt exist.

The same people who complain about counting every vote have no concern when their elected reps are emasculated by any guy who wears a robe.

One guy, judge or not, was never intended to eb the final say on what is or isnt legal. As a practical matter we generally do allow the courts to determine legality, but they were never granted final say
 
its very scary the power that judges have, and the power to interpret the law however they wish. one judge can interpret it one way and another can interpret it the exact opposite way, whos right, whos wrong?
 
JerseyArt said:
The Congress and Executive Branch of this country passed legislation ordering a federal judge to review this womans case and his response was essentially "Go fuck yourself".
Click to expand...
Okay, what if he said, that I have reviewed the case but am still going to rule in the same way? Because that's how I took it not the go fuck yourself comment.
 
EnderJE said:
Okay, what if he said, that I have reviewed the case but am still going to rule in the same way? Because that's how I took it not the go fuck yourself comment.
Click to expand...


No maing

They clearly ordered a review of the case.

Only one judge has ever actually reviewed the facts of this case.

All that was demanded was that someone other than that one judge look at the facts of the case in total.

Regardless, this was law passed by the entire Congress of the US. How does this one asshole get to determine that he can ignore the other two branches in such a clear demand?

Nah, it was a fuck you
 
The judge probably wondered why the hell the other two branches were involved in this case in the first place.
 
JerseyArt said:
One guy, judge or not, was never intended to eb the final say on what is or isnt legal. As a practical matter we generally do allow the courts to determine legality, but they were never granted final say
Click to expand...
The judges job is indeed to determine what is or what isnt legal. If Veggies parents want to keep her alive they need to either challenge who has say, or prove that it is illegal to remove the tube.
JA, please find the law that says the parents have say over spouse, or that it is illegal to remove the tube.
Thanks
 
JerseyArt said:
No maing

They clearly ordered a review of the case.

Only one judge has ever actually reviewed the facts of this case.

All that was demanded was that someone other than that one judge look at the facts of the case in total.

Regardless, this was law passed by the entire Congress of the US. How does this one asshole get to determine that he can ignore the other two branches in such a clear demand?

Nah, it was a fuck you
Click to expand...
Hmmm, when you put it that way...seems like a "fuck you" to me.

No non-biased party is not looking at it? I find it funny given all the commotion that its causing; although I thought that others would be fearful for what their input and involvement could do to their careers...
 
JerseyArt said:
Childish statement which I'll excuse because...well...you are a child.

When you get older hopefully you'll begin to see the larger picture.
Click to expand...

oh and like your thread title is any more mature than my statement.

quit being a goober.
 
jestros said:
The judges job is indeed to determine what is or what isnt legal. If Veggies parents want to keep her alive they need to either challenge who has say, or prove that it is illegal to remove the tube.
JA, please find the law that says the parents have say over spouse, or that it is illegal to remove the tube.
Thanks
Click to expand...


Bor you don't even demonstrate enough knowledge of the case to comment.

For one thing the spouse doesnt have say over the parents on the matter. That isn't even what the courts decided.

What was decided was that seven years after she was already in this state her spouse suddenly recalled (even though ther is testimony from friends of his that claim he admitted to them that he lied which the courts wont review) she once told him she wouldnt wish to persist in this state should it ever happen. Her family in turn has said that was never her wish.

Further you keep mindlessly repeating "veggie" as if you had any understanding of the medical case. She hasnt even been examined in the last 3 years, not even so much as had an MRI to check her condition. A neurologist from the Mayo Clinic who examined her 3 weeks ago has offered sworn statements that she isnt in a permanent vegetitiatve state, and exhibits at least minimal consciousness.

The testimony saying she is in a vegetitative state comes from one doctor, and over 30 others have offered testimony questioning the assessment.

Stop mindlessly parroting silly statements which at best are suspect.

All that was ordered was a full review of the case. Were she a convicted criminal on death row no one would question her right to have all evidence heard prior to being put to death. But the same peopel who would be whining over that cant kill this woman fast enough
 
UA_Iron said:
The judge probably wondered why the hell the other two branches were involved in this case in the first place.
Click to expand...


That's the point bor, no judge has the authority to make that determination. It is the purpose of the courts to help interpret law, not judge which laws should or shouldnt be considered by the other two branches.

It isnt his place to judge what they should or shouldnt be concerning themsleves with maing
 
The part I don't get is why all the interest in this case?

She's just one women who will forgotten by the next month when the new crisis looms.

None of us know exactly what happened and who said what, we're all getting our news second hand. None of us are involved.
 
EnderJE said:
Hmmm, when you put it that way...seems like a "fuck you" to me.

No non-biased party is not looking at it? I find it funny given all the commotion that its causing; although I thought that others would be fearful for what their input and involvement could do to their careers...
Click to expand...


It is absolutely stunning.

But then again we have a compliant pro death media who keep repeatedly claiming among other things that this woman is in a coma and on life support, even though both statements are objectively false
 
I think this may be the perfect time to test the theory of natural selection?

j/k
 
JerseyArt said:
It is absolutely stunning.

But then again we have a compliant pro death media who keep repeatedly claiming among other things that this woman is in a coma and on life support, even though both statements are objectively false
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know about that. I haven't been there to see for myself that she's in a coma or on life support.

I'm guessing that you don't either and are getting your news from a different source then the pro death media.
 
JerseyArt said:
Bor you don't even demonstrate enough knowledge of the case to comment.
Click to expand...
But Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic-Jacksonville, examined Schiavo's medical records and watched videotapes provided by her parents and concluded she was "most likely in a state of minimal consciousness."

Your doctor saw video tapes and reviewed records, LOL.
 
EnderJE said:
I wouldn't know about that. I haven't been there to see for myself that she's in a coma or on life support.

I'm guessing that you don't either and are getting your news from a different source then the pro death media.
Click to expand...


It isn't a matter of conjecture maing.

She isnt on life support. The sum total of extraordinary measures to keep her alive was a feeding tube. To label that "life support" is disingenous at best.


And there is no contention she is in a coma. Clearly she is awake, and no one is disputing the fact. But the representation in the media keeps suggesting she is in one
 
JerseyArt said:
It isn't a matter of conjecture maing.

She isnt on life support. The sum total of extraordinary measures to keep her alive was a feeding tube. To label that "life support" is disingenous at best.

And there is no contention she is in a coma. Clearly she is awake, and no one is disputing the fact. But the representation in the media keeps suggesting she is in one
Click to expand...
Got it. Then my perception was incorrect.

dang then, that's crappy if they removed her only support...
 
JerseyArt said:
It isn't a matter of conjecture maing.

She isnt on life support. The sum total of extraordinary measures to keep her alive was a feeding tube. To label that "life support" is disingenous at best.


And there is no contention she is in a coma. Clearly she is awake, and no one is disputing the fact. But the representation in the media keeps suggesting she is in one
Click to expand...
You can be in a vegitative state without being on "life support"
Blood pumps, lungs breath with out your brain telling them too.
 
jestros said:
You can be in a vegitative state without being on "life support"
Blood pumps, lungs breath with out your brain telling them too.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. When I think of a vegitative state, I think of complete brain death. Nothiing. No synapses. No reflexive instructions to flex muscles.

If that is not the case...
 
jestros said:
If it wasn't for JA's type of judges, they'd be able to kill her alot quicker. Instead they've gotta pull the feed tube and do it the slow way.
Click to expand...

Agreed... i would like to see her dropped from a building as one of the objects Dave Letterman can drop, or used as a crash test dummy.
 
Sounds like some Bushie croonie doesn't have the first clue to how the legal system works. Which is no surpise. Dubya and Jeb don't seem to understand it either.

Dubya signed into effect a couple years ago the law that gives DOCTORS, not spouses, not parents, to make the decision on whether to extend life by artificial means. Of course, Dubya does nothing but consistently show inconsistency anyway. As here.

Then you got Jeb, showing up on TV promising everyone that he is going to save her and promising her parents nothing will happen. Of course, Jeb's promises don't mean shit - as his history has shown - and the courts slapped him back down. What does he do next? Coughs up some "expert" that has "startling new evidence" of her condition. :rolleyes: This so called expert is a member of the church and two other organizations bent on prolonging her suffering. No surprise. What is a surprise is this so called "expert" made his diagnosis based on a one hour video tape. He never even saw her in person prior to "evaluating" her. So this man is such an expert (read : croonie) that he knows more about her from one hour of video tape than her own doctors know from 10+ years of daily treatment and care? Yeah... right.

Thank god for judges with a lick of common sense left. YAY! for them.
 
i think the judges made the right call, I don't think letting her starve to death is right or should be leagl, but the judges did their job.

I think this is the perfect case for doctor assisted euthenasia.. but the conservatives will NEVER back that plan.

If they are going to remove the tube knowing that she will starve to death, they should legally be able to euthanize her.
 
jestros said:
The judges job is indeed to determine what is or what isnt legal. If Veggies parents want to keep her alive they need to either challenge who has say, or prove that it is illegal to remove the tube.
JA, please find the law that says the parents have say over spouse, or that it is illegal to remove the tube.
Thanks
Click to expand...

This is the long and the short of it. The courts simply decide the legal question of who gets to speak for the potato. The appeals courts do even less, simply reviewing what the lower court decided and determining only if the law was misinterpreted, which it wasn't...

The judges are not the ones who are grandstanding in front of the tv cameras...that would be your elected politicians.

The whole thing is a national disgrace. FWIW, I wouldn't want to live like that, whether it is technically "life support" or not. She has been looking at the baloon on the celing for 15 years. Imagine if there is cognitive thought going on behind those eyes...she would be begging to be killed.


Bluesman
 
superdave said:
The problem with most judges is they have too much job security and therefore are untouchable and can make any decision they feel like without consequence. We need to make it easier to remove judges from the bench for poor job performance.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who is a wealthy lawyer who routinely gets judges to decide things inhis favor by threatening to "run someone against him".

Judges are elected. But no one challenges them. Federal judges are lifetime appointees.

The answer is

(1) term limits
(2) No lifetime appointees, even to the Supreme Court. SC judges get 1, 20 year term.
(3) Cameras in all courtrooms. Federal judges have been resisting this for decades.

Too easy.
 
Tuff cases make bad law. This was bullshit legislation that's probably unconstitutional anyway (cant make laws targeted to a specific individual, and I think that's what this may have gotten boiled down to (if not in so many words) in order to get the votes to pass, because even republicans choked at the overreaching federalism issue).

so basically the judge looked at bullshit, and said "bullshit". the end result was correct, even if the path there was messy.

If they disagree with the decision they can appeal it. I dont know anything about the judge (party, ideology), but I do know that the legislation was pure pander-politics looking to keep the religiorabble happy (check my thread on the talking point that Sen Santorums office put out on the issue.- playing raw disgusting politics with a familys life)



JerseyArt said:
The Congress and Executive Branch of this country passed legislation ordering a federal judge to review this womans case and his response was essentially "Go fuck yourself"

No one elsected this asshole. One judge in some federal court appointed because he helped raise a bunch of money for some politician in his district does not in any reasonable representative system get to tell the entire country to go diddle themselves.

If it were Carter or Clinton in power my angst would be the same. We now have a court system that dismisses even the most clear legislation and just interprets it to mean whatever the hell they wish.

If that doesnt concern you then you have no appreciation of how our government works, or the consequnces of legislating by fiat.

Our system of government is premised on 3 equal branches reviewing and checking one another. We no longer have that in this country. The entire nation could pass a Constitutional Amendment tomorrow and a relative handful of people can simply choose to pretend it doesnt exist.

The same people who complain about counting every vote have no concern when their elected reps are emasculated by any guy who wears a robe.

One guy, judge or not, was never intended to eb the final say on what is or isnt legal. As a practical matter we generally do allow the courts to determine legality, but they were never granted final say
Click to expand...
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I have a friend who is a wealthy lawyer who routinely gets judges to decide things inhis favor by threatening to "run someone against him".

Judges are elected. But no one challenges them. Federal judges are lifetime appointees.

The answer is

(1) term limits
(2) No lifetime appointees, even to the Supreme Court. SC judges get 1, 20 year term.
(3) Cameras in all courtrooms. Federal judges have been resisting this for decades.

Too easy.
Click to expand...

I agree with these solutions. :)
 
UA_Iron said:
I think this may be the perfect time to test the theory of natural selection?

j/k
Click to expand...

I hear midgets are often selected out of the gene pool. Might want to hold off on that unless you're standing on a phone book. lol. :heks:
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I hear midgets are often selected out of the gene pool. Might want to hold off on that unless you're standing on a phone book. lol. :heks:
Click to expand...

matt if I were on clomid right now I'd be crying, seriously.

You probably shouldnt reproduce either.
 
The rule of law is paramount in these messy situations. Consider the complexity of this: her parents are saying one thing, her husband another, etc.

We don't have a King Solomon to exert his wisdom here, and monarchy sucks. So we have a system of laws that we default to.

As the law is written in Florida, the spouse has the right to make a "remove the tube" determination. Is Michael Schiavo is shitbag? Yup. Trailer Junk? yep. No question. But justice is blind.

While it may have seemed bizarre for the judge to reject Congressional (legislative) overtures, one would have to agree that adherence to laws as they are written is paramount.

And as they are written, state laws prevail here, as much as we disagree and think the wrong decision is being made. An attempt for Congress to intervene would be a nasty violation of the 10th amendment, no?
 
UA_Iron said:
matt if I were on clomid right now I'd be crying, seriously.

You probably shouldnt reproduce either.
Click to expand...

I'm just giving you a hard time bor. Don't take that shit seriously.

And don't cry. :)
 
JerseyArt said:
That's the point bor, no judge has the authority to make that determination. It is the purpose of the courts to help interpret law, not judge which laws should or shouldnt be considered by the other two branches.

It isnt his place to judge what they should or shouldnt be concerning themsleves with maing
Click to expand...
When I was the plaintiff in a civil case, my lawyer said at least one good thing (maybe two, but thats it)- I would keep analyzing everything like a computer scientist, like it was an equation. and he basically said "Bor (he was an EF member), ther's no such thing as a Law Machine, where you put the facts in on one side, and the law on the other, and it spits out the "correct" answer (which is what I was doing)".

He said "judges do equity" . and sometimes they'll stretch the law or the interpretation of the facts, or the admissability of evidence in order to see that equity gets done."

I think thats what may have happened here, and what happens everyday (from the left side and the right side), and was contemplated by the founders.


-
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
The rule of law is paramount in these messy situations. Consider the complexity of this: her parents are saying one thing, her husband another, etc.

We don't have a King Solomon to exert his wisdom here, and monarchy sucks. So we have a system of laws that we default to.

As the law is written in Florida, the spouse has the right to make a "remove the tube" determination. Is Michael Schiavo is shitbag? Yup. Trailer Junk? yep. No question. But justice is blind.

While it may have seemed bizarre for the judge to reject Congressional (legislative) overtures, one would have to agree that adherence to laws as they are written is paramount.

And as they are written, state laws prevail here, as much as we disagree and think the wrong decision is being made. An attempt for Congress to intervene would be a nasty violation of the 10th amendment, no?
Click to expand...


You may have forgotten the Fourtennth amendment maing.

It was a small thing, although we did fight a war over it some time back to decide the issue..

XIV Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


It's beyond bizarre for the judge to reject the legislation of Congress, it is Unconstitutional for him to do so.

It's only because we have ceded final arbitration to the courts of what is legal that we find ourselves in this abusrd predicament.

It is the Chief Executive who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US. He is a co equal branch with the judiciary, and is not a servant to the whims of the judiciary.

If a court ordered the execution of all children in the US, to make an absurd example, the Chief Executive is not obligated by that decision to comply.

When state courts in the 60's refused admittance to black Americans Kennedy sent in the armed forces in contravention of those decsions in order to force compliance with the complete authority of the 14th Amendement.

So all the ignorant liberals who now attempt to make a case about state rights simply verify they dont even understand what constitutes states rights to begin with
 
geoboy said:
When I was the plaintiff in a civil case, my lawyer said at least one good thing (maybe two, but thats it)- I would keep analyzing everything like a computer scientist, like it was an equation. and he basically said "Bor (he was an EF member), ther's no such thing as a Law Machine, where you put the facts in on one side, and the law on the other, and it spits out the "correct" answer (which is what I was doing)".

He said "judges do equity" . and sometimes they'll stretch the law or the interpretation of the facts, or the admissability of evidence in order to see that equity gets done."

I think thats what may have happened here, and what happens everyday (from the left side and the right side), and was contemplated by the founders.


-
Click to expand...


Nice story maing, but that isnt what happened here.

One Judge deliberately ignored an act of Congress and placed himself and his opinion above the combined voice of the people as expressed by two elected branches of government. And this is hardly a unique case.

It was contemplated by the founders as something they specifically outlined they hoped never to occur. They foresaw the danger of the Judiciary overriding the other two branches oif government, and saw that as the worst possible case scenario for all.

Over the last 50 years that is exactly what has come to happen
 
JerseyArt said:
You may have forgotten the Fourtennth amendment maing.

It was a small thing, although we did fight a war over it some time back to decide the issue..


XIV Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

Nah, I know that one, the anti slavery amendment. I don't understand how that could be brought to bear in this case though. I am not trying to be silly or make you explain it.

I agree with the context of what you said, but I don't think the state of FL is violating any Constitutional rights or doing anything absent due process.

I agree with your larger themed issues about the judiciary, but - and I think Michael Schiavo is human shit - I don't see where the laws are being shattered here.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Nah, I know that one, the anti slavery amendment. I don't understand how that could be brought to bear in this case though. I am not trying to be silly or make you explain it.

I agree with the context of what you said, but I don't think the state of FL is violating any Constitutional rights or doing anything absent due process.

I agree with your larger themed issues about the judiciary, but - and I think Michael Schiavo is human shit - I don't see where the laws are being shattered here.
Click to expand...


The fourteenth amendment specifcally authorizes the federal government to intervene in cases where a persons life, liberty, or property are unduly are deemed to have been unduly denied them. This is an important distinction, because keep in mind process of law in may of those states at the time would have allwoed for public lynchings for example. So it isnt simply a matter of following state laws.

Moreover it was left specifically to the Congress (not the federal courts) to enforce this measure by legislation when they saw fit. Not when some judge thought they had the authority to intervene.

By the Congress ordering a full review of the case, they exercised their authority in this manner. That authority was ignored by one judge who thought he knew better.

This isnt a matter of who is right and who is wrong. If elected represewntatives pass foolish or unnecessary laws then it is for the people to elect new representatives. It is not for some bum fuck judge to determeine that he can iignore whatever congressional legislation he doesnt like.
 
so all the evidence, as found by more than a dozen courts, shows that this woman clearly and repeatedly stated she did not want to go on living like she currently is and the judges should be executed? no, orb. execute ultra right wing conservatives in congress? maybe
 
The Wenis said:
so all the evidence, as found by more than a dozen courts, shows that this woman clearly and repeatedly stated she did not want to go on living like she currently is and the judges should be executed? no, orb. execute ultra right wing conservatives in congress? maybe
Click to expand...


Bull maing

One judge was presented evidence in this case,a dnevery other court involved just ruled on wheteher or not to uphold his decisions and never examined the evidence of the case.

One judge.

And in any case this thread had to do with the judge who ignored the act of Congress callign for a new trial and review of the facts
 
JerseyArt said:
Bull maing

One judge was presented evidence in this case,a dnevery other court involved just ruled on wheteher or not to uphold his decisions and never examined the evidence of the case.

One judge.

And in any case this thread had to do with the judge who ignored the act of Congress callign for a new trial and review of the facts
Click to expand...

i can see i will never come out on top in this discussion

however, i would still rather have courts making legal calls than congress getting involved in the private decisions of families

[your disagreement here] ;)
 
The Wenis said:
i can see i will never come out on top in this discussion

however, i would still rather have courts making legal calls than congress getting involved in the private decisions of families

[your disagreement here] ;)
Click to expand...


No man, in all sincerity, I was hoping you'd show up and offer a legal perspective.

I think as a general rule you are correct,and as I stated earlier practicality demands that this be the case.

But defying an order of Congress strikes me as unconscionable. I didnt start this thread to argue the particulars of the Shiavo case. What does concern me even more is the way in which the courts have essentially coopted the elected branches of government in this country.

We are not a government of the Judicary, but a represntative republic, and the situation with the courts has become more and more out of hand in the last fifty years. Part of it is an unwillingness by elected officials to exercise their authority in the face of possible public criticism, and part is the nomination of so many agenda pushers to the bench.

But part is also this myth that has been created that the courts are the final arbiter in what constitutes the law of the land.
 
JerseyArt said:
But part is also this myth that has been created that the courts are the final arbiter in what constitutes the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.
Click to expand...
That case established the concept of Judicial Review, which means the judicial branch can "review" the other two branches for adherance to the constitution.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.
Click to expand...


No maing, although that is what is often presented as true.

In essensce Marshall played a game with the law.

Knowing full well that Jefferson would simply ignore any writ ordering him to deliver Marbury's appontment, the Court simply ruled that yes Jefferson should have delivered Marburys appointment, but that the Judiciary act of Congress which allowed the courts to write such a writ forcing Jefferson to do so was itself Unconstitutioanl. With that act they determined to claim for themsleves the right to detemine constitutionality, but then never even attempted another such ruling for well over half a century.

It specifically avoided dealing with judicial power over the executive office, which is essentially the topic of this debate.
 
JerseyArt said:
No maing, although that is what is often presented as true.

In essensce Marshall played a game with the law.

Knowing full well that Jefferson would simply ignore any writ ordering him to deliver Marbury's appontment, the Court simply ruled that yes Jefferson should have delivered Marburys appointment, but that the Judiciary act of Congress which allowed the courts to write such a writ forcing Jefferson to do so was itself Unconstitutioanl. With that act they determined to claim for themsleves the right to detemine constitutionality, but then never even attempted another such ruling for well over half a century.

It specifically avoided dealing with judicial power over the executive office, which is essentially the topic of this debate.
Click to expand...


LMAO

i specifically remember my constitutional law professor making that same argument in 1996. you must be a closet lawyer (btw, there are self-help groups to get you out).
 
The Wenis said:
LMAO

i specifically remember my constitutional law professor making that same argument in 1996. you must be a closet lawyer (btw, there are self-help groups to get you out).
Click to expand...


LOL

You have no idea how close I came. I was already accepted;)
 
hooch said:
Wow...I had no idea you know him. Tell us more...
Click to expand...

He = most of Florida.

We all know him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

javaguru
War, Peace and the State
Replies
7
Views
4K
javaguru
javaguru
Arabian
Bailout bill fails Dow plunges over 500
Replies
4
Views
1K
DannoMight
DannoMight
T
Does the power elite have a grain of ethics? One grain?
Replies
21
Views
3K
Mr. dB
Mr. dB
Lestat
The cost of money
Replies
14
Views
2K
WODIN
WODIN
PINTOBEAN
East German Doping in the 70's
Replies
2
Views
7K
PINTOBEAN
PINTOBEAN
Top Bottom