Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Typing in large font makes me appear smarter!
The only distinction between "Judicial activism" and "Judicial interpretation" is whether the speaker agrees or disagrees.
You have tracking issues.The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
You have tracking issues.The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
I am adding wit and humor...try it sometime....
Read the entire post, punkin. He explains.You have tracking issues.The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
What is it that you think I'm not "tracking"? What does the Confederate flag have to do with "Judicial activism"?
Read the entire post, punkin. He explains.You have tracking issues.The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
What is it that you think I'm not "tracking"? What does the Confederate flag have to do with "Judicial activism"?
Read the entire post, punkin. He explains.You have tracking issues.Yeah...but you have to admit that removing a racist democrat battle flag, a symbol of racist, slave owning democrats, from a Civil War memorial is one of the most important things we have ever done..right? That was worth it...right?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
What is it that you think I'm not "tracking"? What does the Confederate flag have to do with "Judicial activism"?
No, he doesn't. Nothing in his post relates to the topic of this thread.
They read, and decide what a law means. And, if there's a way to read it as being constitutional, they pick that one. Seriously, take a night class or something. This is NOT hard stuff.Sigh.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nothing in your link is contrary with what I said, the court has every right to declare a law void, they do not however have the right to apply a judicial fix to a law, their only legal avenue is to void it or apply it as written and allow the legislature to fix it.
They read, and decide what a law means. And, if there's a way to read it as being constitutional, they pick that one. Seriously, take a night class or something. This is NOT hard stuff.Sigh.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nothing in your link is contrary with what I said, the court has every right to declare a law void, they do not however have the right to apply a judicial fix to a law, their only legal avenue is to void it or apply it as written and allow the legislature to fix it.
You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.We're not quite to the point of all-out violent tyranny yet but we're rapidly approaching it. They want to disarm as many of us as possible before they start shooting.FASCISTS DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WEAK SPOTS- THEY DON'T MIND USING FIREARMS TO FORCE OBAMA CARE ON US.
SCUMBAG ROBERTS KNOWS THAT HIS FASCISTIC RULING WILL BE CONSIDERED THE LAW OF THE LAND.
HE KNOWS THAT THE CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE HAS A MASSIVE DOMESTIC ARMY WILLING AND ABLE TO FORCE US TO COMPLY.
.
Ah, vague and thuggish threats of violence. Followed immediately by chickenshit excuses why you won't be fighting.
You're in excellent company. As most of your ilk have the same excuses why its always someone *else* that should be fighting and bleeding.
So when you referred to 'shooting', you were making reference to cameras? And 'disarm' was removing people's limbs?
Or were you referring to guns and killing people?
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
The equal protection clause like many things has been rendered meaningless, it applies to almost anything when in fact the intention was to not deny a person equal protection of the laws. Marriage has nothing to do with this. It had to do with persons not being afforded the same rights as whites. Just another perversion of the law.
As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.
The people are the natural guardians of the Constitution
Alexander Hamilton
The law was flawed. I do think the gop sort of boxed in the court. Roberts might have voted to end the exchanges and send it back to congress. But, it became clear the gop would not fix it. So, the result of not finding a way to read the four words absence as meaningless, would have put the court in play like a shuttlecock between Obama and the teaparty. But again, if a law is constitutional (and this one is, despite what you'd prefer, but he horse has left the barn on that) AND there's a way to find a law is ambiguous and allow it to construed to work the way its supposed to work, courts should do it. And if you were party to a contract that you liked that could be construed either as legal or not legal, you'd be braying like a Missouri mule for the legal.They read, and decide what a law means. And, if there's a way to read it as being constitutional, they pick that one. Seriously, take a night class or something. This is NOT hard stuff.Sigh.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nothing in your link is contrary with what I said, the court has every right to declare a law void, they do not however have the right to apply a judicial fix to a law, their only legal avenue is to void it or apply it as written and allow the legislature to fix it.
No, they read the law as being flawed and applied a judicial fix to a legislative act, they don't have the authority to legislate.
The law was flawed. I do think the gop sort of boxed in the court. Roberts might have voted to end the exchanges and send it back to congress. But, it became clear the gop would not fix it. So, the result of not finding a way to read the four words absence as meaningless, would have put the court in play like a shuttlecock between Obama and the teaparty. But again, if a law is constitutional (and this one is, despite what you'd prefer, but he horse has left the barn on that) AND there's a way to find a law is ambiguous and allow it to construed to work the way its supposed to work, courts should do it. And if you were party to a contract that you liked that could be construed either as legal or not legal, you'd be braying like a Missouri mule for the legal.They read, and decide what a law means. And, if there's a way to read it as being constitutional, they pick that one. Seriously, take a night class or something. This is NOT hard stuff.Sigh.It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nothing in your link is contrary with what I said, the court has every right to declare a law void, they do not however have the right to apply a judicial fix to a law, their only legal avenue is to void it or apply it as written and allow the legislature to fix it.
No, they read the law as being flawed and applied a judicial fix to a legislative act, they don't have the authority to legislate.
Why don't you get back to us in a few years when hopefully you will have matured enough to carry on an adult conversation?You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.We're not quite to the point of all-out violent tyranny yet but we're rapidly approaching it. They want to disarm as many of us as possible before they start shooting.
Ah, vague and thuggish threats of violence. Followed immediately by chickenshit excuses why you won't be fighting.
You're in excellent company. As most of your ilk have the same excuses why its always someone *else* that should be fighting and bleeding.
So when you referred to 'shooting', you were making reference to cameras? And 'disarm' was removing people's limbs?
Or were you referring to guns and killing people?
I have no problems with talking. But thuggish threats aren't really a conversation. They're the rhetorical equivalent of shitting in your hand and throwing it.
So far the OP has yet to do anything more than beg a question or two. Which I've questioned.
Appointment to the Courts is made by a politician and the appointee is approved by politicians, all based on the appointee's politics. The appointee is expected to make decisions based on the president's politics, and most judges follow that political custom. On rare occasions, however, a judge does not follow the political protocol and allows other factors to enter his decision, rare but it does happen, and when it does, people are upset.The law was flawed. I do think the gop sort of boxed in the court. Roberts might have voted to end the exchanges and send it back to congress. But, it became clear the gop would not fix it. So, the result of not finding a way to read the four words absence as meaningless, would have put the court in play like a shuttlecock between Obama and the teaparty. But again, if a law is constitutional (and this one is, despite what you'd prefer, but he horse has left the barn on that) AND there's a way to find a law is ambiguous and allow it to construed to work the way its supposed to work, courts should do it. And if you were party to a contract that you liked that could be construed either as legal or not legal, you'd be braying like a Missouri mule for the legal.They read, and decide what a law means. And, if there's a way to read it as being constitutional, they pick that one. Seriously, take a night class or something. This is NOT hard stuff.Sigh.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nothing in your link is contrary with what I said, the court has every right to declare a law void, they do not however have the right to apply a judicial fix to a law, their only legal avenue is to void it or apply it as written and allow the legislature to fix it.
No, they read the law as being flawed and applied a judicial fix to a legislative act, they don't have the authority to legislate.
A concept that you fail to grasp is the courts are supposed to be independent and politics should NEVER enter their decision. Wording that denied subsidies to the federal exchange appeared 7 times in the bill, the court had no authority to change that, it's up to the legislature, period.
