Shoot all the Judges

[MattTheSkywalker]

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

You probably shouldnt reproduce either.

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

And don't cry.

 

[geoboy]

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

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.


-

 

[CFZB]

Hitler and his advocates used to change the law to suit thier agenda too.

 

[H_T_]

ftw.

 

[jerseyart]

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?

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

 

[jerseyart]

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.


-

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

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

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.

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.

 

[jerseyart]

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.

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.

 

[The Wenis]

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

 

[jerseyart]

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

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