Judicial Activism vs Interpretation

[Skylar]

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.

You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.

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?

You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.

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.

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?

Smiling....would you care to try and factually establish the claims of the OP? Or is it just more excuses and thuggish threats of vague violence?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

 

[S.J.]

You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.

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?

You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.

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.

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?

Smiling....would you care to try and factually establish the claims of the OP? Or is it just more excuses and thuggish threats of vague violence?

Not with you.

 

[Skylar]

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?

You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.

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.

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?

Smiling....would you care to try and factually establish the claims of the OP? Or is it just more excuses and thuggish threats of vague violence?

Not with you.

So....more excuses. Well, at least you've given up on your thuggish threats. So that's progress of a sort.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

 

[S.J.]

You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.

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.

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?

Smiling....would you care to try and factually establish the claims of the OP? Or is it just more excuses and thuggish threats of vague violence?

Not with you.

So....more excuses. Well, at least you've given up on your thuggish threats. So that's progress of a sort.

Think whatever you want.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ARGUMENT HONEST YOU SHOULD BEGIN YOUR POSTS BY ADMITTING TO BEING A PARASITE WHO WILL FIND THAT ANY RULING THAT BENEFITS YOU IS A "JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION".

.

You have yet to have an introduction touching base with the problems in the interpretation, with citing of Fed Statues....

 

[Skylar]

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?

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ARGUMENT HONEST YOU SHOULD BEGIN YOUR POSTS BY ADMITTING TO BEING A PARASITE WHO WILL FIND THAT ANY RULING THAT BENEFITS YOU IS A "JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION".

.

You have yet to have an introduction touching base with the problems in the interpretation, with citing of Fed Statues....

Yeah, but he typed in a huge font. So that's almost the same thing, right?

 

[Moonglow]

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?

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ARGUMENT HONEST YOU SHOULD BEGIN YOUR POSTS BY ADMITTING TO BEING A PARASITE WHO WILL FIND THAT ANY RULING THAT BENEFITS YOU IS A "JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION".

.

You have yet to have an introduction touching base with the problems in the interpretation, with citing of Fed Statues....

Yeah, but he typed in a huge font. So that's almost the same thing, right?

That may work for church, but not law...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess the concept of lifetime appointments so the courts would be independent is flawed. Maybe we should change all of them with each administration like we do the AG.

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

 

[Skylar]

Cruz certainly thinks so. So apparently, so do you.

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Not really, I want justices that will apply law and the Constitution as written, that is their job, if they can't do that, they need to go. An honorable person would resign, but we evidently don't have honorable people on the court.

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it. The Constitution does not give them that power.

 

[Skylar]

That assumes that we equating agreeing with you and being 'honorable'. I certainty don't. I thought the Obergefell decision was very well thought through. Hell, it was ridiculously predictable. And I suspect that Scalia's dissent is going to go down as one of the more embarrassing tantrums in USSC history. And cited very much like Leon Bazile is now when discussing the Loving decision.

As for the ACA ruling, they followed the intent of the legislators. Which is what precedent requires they do.

You disagree. Um.....so? The legitimacy of their ruling isn't based on your agreement.

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it.

They were cases that arose with the US as a party. As it was a federal lawsuit against the treasury. And a case that arose under US law. As ACA is US law. Both of which are explicit jurisdictions of the federal judiciary.

The Constitution does not give them that power.

The power to adjudicate cases over which it has jurisdiction? Um, yeah. It did.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not their job to determine intent or fix a law, that is a legislative function reserved only to congress.

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it.

They were cases that arose with the US as a party. As it was a federal lawsuit against the treasury. And a case that arose under US law. As ACA is US law. Both of which are explicit jurisdictions of the federal judiciary.

The Constitution does not give them that power.

The power to adjudicate cases over which it has jurisdiction? Um, yeah. It did.

One question, was the law constitutional as written?

 

[Skylar]

The intent of the legislators is most definitely what they are supposed to follow. This according to some rather well established case law.

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it.

They were cases that arose with the US as a party. As it was a federal lawsuit against the treasury. And a case that arose under US law. As ACA is US law. Both of which are explicit jurisdictions of the federal judiciary.

The Constitution does not give them that power.

The power to adjudicate cases over which it has jurisdiction? Um, yeah. It did.

One question, was the law constitutional as written?

Depends on which part you're talking about. The court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the entire law. Only portions of it. For the authority to tax under ACA, absolutely. For the other portions, there's been no explicit determination.

Though the law is enforcible unless found unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell me, who gave the court that power?

The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.

The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it.

They were cases that arose with the US as a party. As it was a federal lawsuit against the treasury. And a case that arose under US law. As ACA is US law. Both of which are explicit jurisdictions of the federal judiciary.

The Constitution does not give them that power.

The power to adjudicate cases over which it has jurisdiction? Um, yeah. It did.

One question, was the law constitutional as written?

Depends on which part you're talking about. The court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the entire law. Only portions of it. For the authority to tax under ACA, absolutely. For the other portions, there's been no explicit determination.

Though the law is enforcible unless found unconstitutional.

Did the court, in yesterdays ruling find the subsidies as written unconstitutional? Answer the question and stop the games.