$5 Gas Predicted Under Obama -- What, No Pitchforks?

[Yurt]

"we tried, but the two topics - i - came up with we agreed on, i actually asked you to come up with the topics...then i got busy and it faded....i actually defended your willingness to debate in some threat about you in the FZ...dig it my man" Thanks, my man, and I appreciate it.

I see that we think alike on many things.

Judicial activism? Trying to get at Obamacare through the courts is liberal gay, don't you think? We can get at it in Appropriations this year by chipping at by attaching all sorts of stuff to the budget. We won't get everything because the dems in the Senate will make Mitch M's gang look like wusses by the time that fight is over.

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you in favor of us being in Iraq and Afganistan?

Yes.

That is not a typical libertarian stance. LIsten to Ron Paul a bit more.[/QUOTE

daveman is either retiring or has retired very recently from active duty. I understand your point, UScitizen, but I think daveman is too emotionally involved concerning Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am, too, for that matter. However, I don't think we can control the corruption in the Afghan government anymore than we did in Vietnam, and we will lose for the same reason. Either we withdraw, or we nuke the entire place and withdraw.

We still, as a people, hold to enough American values that we will accept defeat.

 

[Baron]

I will be not amazed if prizes will be $6/gallon in the next year because Obama is clueless in economy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"we tried, but the two topics - i - came up with we agreed on, i actually asked you to come up with the topics...then i got busy and it faded....i actually defended your willingness to debate in some threat about you in the FZ...dig it my man" Thanks, my man, and I appreciate it.

I see that we think alike on many things.

Judicial activism? Trying to get at Obamacare through the courts is liberal gay, don't you think? We can get at it in Appropriations this year by chipping at by attaching all sorts of stuff to the budget. We won't get everything because the dems in the Senate will make Mitch M's gang look like wusses by the time that fight is over.

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

 

[uscitizen]

Yes.

That is not a typical libertarian stance. LIsten to Ron Paul a bit more.[/QUOTE

daveman is either retiring or has retired very recently from active duty. I understand your point, UScitizen, but I think daveman is too emotionally involved concerning Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am, too, for that matter. However, I don't think we can control the corruption in the Afghan government anymore than we did in Vietnam, and we will lose for the same reason. Either we withdraw, or we nuke the entire place and withdraw.

We still, as a people, hold to enough American values that we will accept defeat.

Heck we can't even control the corruption in our won govt.

But anyway we cannot force different cultures into something they do not want or are not ready for. Nor should we have ever tried.

imho the extent of our militar action in that area should have been a 6 month max excursion into afgansitan to kick OBL's groups ass and then withdrawn with the warning that we would be back if they mess with us again.

 

[uscitizen]

I will be not amazed if prizes will be $6/gallon in the next year because Obama is clueless in economy.

LOL and it hit $5 under Bush because?

 

[daveman]

Are you in favor of us being in Iraq and Afganistan?

Yes.

That is not a typical libertarian stance. LIsten to Ron Paul a bit more.

I'm not interested in being a libertarian. The only person on the planet who thinks I'm a libertarian is Jake, and he only does because it's his insult of the day.

 

[daveman]

You don't talk like a conservative Republican, whatsover, and libertarians can never be classical liberals at all.

Your perceptions are horribly skewed.

Let's take a common libertarian position.

Am I in favor of legalizing drugs?

Yoo hoo, Jake! You missed this one!

Deliberately, I expect.

Jake, you can pretend my question is not here, but you're the only person you're fooling.

 

[Yurt]

"we tried, but the two topics - i - came up with we agreed on, i actually asked you to come up with the topics...then i got busy and it faded....i actually defended your willingness to debate in some threat about you in the FZ...dig it my man" Thanks, my man, and I appreciate it.

I see that we think alike on many things.

Judicial activism? Trying to get at Obamacare through the courts is liberal gay, don't you think? We can get at it in Appropriations this year by chipping at by attaching all sorts of stuff to the budget. We won't get everything because the dems in the Senate will make Mitch M's gang look like wusses by the time that fight is over.

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

legislating from the bench

but alas, the term has lost its meaning as is meaningless....

since you stated the above role, how can you call it judicial activism for anyone to bring obamacare to court? the claim is that is over reaches and is unconstitutional, but that bothers you because you support obamacare....the conservative republican in your world would support someone bringing a claim like this.....you even concede it, but can't admit it

sorry dude....that does not at all sound like the conservative republican you claim to be

 

[uscitizen]

Yes.

That is not a typical libertarian stance. LIsten to Ron Paul a bit more.

I'm not interested in being a libertarian. The only person on the planet who thinks I'm a libertarian is Jake, and he only does because it's his insult of the day.

Ohh my apologies, I went off on the wrong track. My mistake.

 

[daveman]

That is not a typical libertarian stance. LIsten to Ron Paul a bit more.

I'm not interested in being a libertarian. The only person on the planet who thinks I'm a libertarian is Jake, and he only does because it's his insult of the day.

Ohh my apologies, I went off on the wrong track. My mistake.

No worries.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You don't talk like a conservative Republican, whatsover, and libertarians can never be classical liberals at all.

Your perceptions are horribly skewed.

Let's take a common libertarian position.

Am I in favor of legalizing drugs?

Are you in favor of us being in Iraq and Afganistan?

What in Sam Hill has THAT got to do with anything?

 

[thereisnospoon]

"we tried, but the two topics - i - came up with we agreed on, i actually asked you to come up with the topics...then i got busy and it faded....i actually defended your willingness to debate in some threat about you in the FZ...dig it my man" Thanks, my man, and I appreciate it.

I see that we think alike on many things.

Judicial activism? Trying to get at Obamacare through the courts is liberal gay, don't you think? We can get at it in Appropriations this year by chipping at by attaching all sorts of stuff to the budget. We won't get everything because the dems in the Senate will make Mitch M's gang look like wusses by the time that fight is over.

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

EHHHH Wrong! Thanks for playing.....No jacko. Not in terms of.......
The SCOTUS interprets individual cases on the merits of each case and whether the case will pass Constitutional muster. Period....

 

[JakeStarkey]

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

legislating from the bench

but alas, the term has lost its meaning as is meaningless....

since you stated the above role, how can you call it judicial activism for anyone to bring obamacare to court? the claim is that is over reaches and is unconstitutional, but that bothers you because you support obamacare....the conservative republican in your world would support someone bringing a claim like this.....you even concede it, but can't admit it

sorry dude....that does not at all sound like the conservative republican you claim to be

The fact that obamacare is going to SCOTUS doesn't bother me at all. That is what the court is about. But I find it hollow to have Republicans who argue about legislating from the bench on issues they oppose to be happily involved in doing the same thing on issues they don't like.

I agree with SCOTUS on its two recent 2nd Amendment rulings. And I have to grin that the Roberts court uses incorporation of the 14th Amendment to get the ruling conservatives want.

Democrats, of course, are as hypocritical as Republicans, in my mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

EHHHH Wrong! Thanks for playing.....No jacko. Not in terms of.......
The SCOTUS interprets individual cases on the merits of each case and whether the case will pass Constitutional muster. Period....

You have it backwards, thereisnospoon. The Constitution is always intepreted in every case. To suggest otherwise is to make reason stare.

 

[jillian]

i don't know about "many" things jake....

judicial activism is not about the scotus reviewing legislative passed laws and determining they are unconstitutional.....that is scotus's job. i have no doubt if the majority (wholly unlikely) in this country wanted slavery and the legislature voted it in that you would claim it is judicial activism to overturn that law....or that you would claim it is judicial activism is the scotus shot down state's anti gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments....

what is the role of scotus jake?

SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in terms of all laws and acts that are subject to it that come before the case.

What do you think is Judicial Activism, Yurt?

EHHHH Wrong! Thanks for playing.....No jacko. Not in terms of.......
The SCOTUS interprets individual cases on the merits of each case and whether the case will pass Constitutional muster. Period....

i'm sorry. Do you know anything about constitutional law at all? seriously. it's ok if you don't. pretending that you do and not knowing anything is really embarrassing for you. better to read and learn before you say absurd things.

STARE DECISIS
Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

Legal Definition of Stare Decisis

so before you try to 'correct' someone who actually DOES know what he's talking about, you might want to take a deep breath.

 

[editec]

I find it astounding that so many people here are experts in constitutional law.

They are, of course, to a man, all "strict interpretationists".

Apparently they all went to the FOX school of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, the Fox blonds are stupendous, if I can be politically incorrect. Most of the guys, and some of the women, in America who watch them are not in the least concerned about how bright or dumb they are about American law and culture.

 

[jillian]

I find it astounding that so many people here are experts in constitutional law.

They are, of course, to a man, all "strict interpretationists".

Apparently they all went to the FOX school of law.

well, they sure as hell didn't take con law at a real law school.

you know, i don't mind that they don't know anything. they're not supposed to have to.

i do mind that they pretend they DO know something

 

[jillian]

Hey, the Fox blonds are stupendous, if I can be politically incorrect. Most of the guys, and some of the women, in America who watch them are not in the least concerned about how bright or dumb they are about American law and culture.

the one they have on in the morning actually is very smart and was something like number one in her class. the fact that she plays stupid for murdoch's money is sad, though i guess it's understandable.