Shoot all the Judges

[The Wenis]

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

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]

 

[jerseyart]

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]

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.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

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.

Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.

 

[-SD-]

Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.

That case established the concept of Judicial Review, which means the judicial branch can "review" the other two branches for adherance to the constitution.

 

[jerseyart]

Myth dates back to Marbry v. Madison, 1804, I think.

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.

 

[The Wenis]

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.

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).

 

[jerseyart]

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).

LOL

You have no idea how close I came. I was already accepted

 

[digger]

Nice, minimal-BS sum up, if anyone still cares....

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050325-4737.html

My $0.02 is that it's not really a judicial "screw you." It's more, "You told me to look, I looked."

 

[hooch]

Is Michael Schiavo is shitbag? Yup. Trailer Junk? yep. No question. But justice is blind.

Wow...I had no idea you know him. Tell us more...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Wow...I had no idea you know him. Tell us more...

He = most of Florida.

We all know him.