Judicial Activism vs Interpretation

[Skylar]

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.

They didn't rule on their constitutionality. In fact, there is no mention of 'constitutionality' in the entire majority ruling.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

They didn't rule on their constitutionality. In fact, there is no mention of 'constitutionality' in the entire majority ruling.

Exactly, the law was constitutional, at that point the courts only course was to enforce it as written. Any consequences of enforcing a constitutional law should be dealt with by the legislature, inconvenience is not the courts concern, only the legality and constitutionality of the law are.

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.


.

If either case, the ACA challenge or the marriage case, were decided based upon the personal views of the authors of the majority opinion, they would have come out the other way.

THE "ACA" CHALLENGE WAS UPHELD BECAUSE JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT WANT LATE NIGHT COMEDIANS AND OTHER CRITICS TO MOCK OR CRITICIZE THE COURT, IE, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TRUMPS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.


A CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IS ONE USED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY , NOT ONE USED TO SUPPORT SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC HOMIES


THE MARRIAGE CASE WAS CORRECT BECAUSE WE HAVE A ****NINTH AMENDMENT****** RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. OF COURSE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO ABOLISH THE NINTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE FROM THEIR FASCISTIC STANDPOINT , THEY AND NOT THE CONSTITUTION , GRANT RIGHTS.


.


.

 

[Skylar]

THE "ACA" CHALLENGE WAS UPHELD BECAUSE JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT WANT LATE NIGHT COMEDIANS AND OTHER CRITICS TO MOCK OR CRITICIZE THE COURT, IE, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TRUMPS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Says you, pretending you are Justice Roberts. Back in reality, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rendering your little game where you pretend you're the Chief Justice something best suited for 4 year olds and imaginary tea.

A CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IS ONE USED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY , NOT ONE USED TO SUPPORT SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC HOMIES

Says you. Citing you. And we don't use you to define a 'constitutional tax'.

Do you have anything but begging the question fallacies and statements of empty personal opinion? Because in a contest of legality between you and the USSC, the USSC wins every time.

THE MARRIAGE CASE WAS CORRECT BECAUSE WE HAVE A ****NINTH AMENDMENT****** RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. OF COURSE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO ABOLISH THE NINTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE FROM THEIR FASCISTIC STANDPOINT , THEY AND NOT THE CONSTITUTION , GRANT RIGHTS.

.They recognize rights. And the right to marry is one that they have recognized.

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.


.

Well, that's an unintentional fail of an OP. If you think Roberts and Kennedy think Obamacare is a good thing, you are an idiot. LOL

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW IS ****CONSTITUTIONAL*****


THE FASCIST RULING , DID NOT AND COULD NOT, EXPLAIN HOW IT CAN BE CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO FORCE FREEMEN TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE OR FACE A PENALTY.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

That you a parasitic fascist , agrees with the ruling does not make it Constitutional. You and your ilk love to incite violence .


.

 

[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?

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.

That you a parasitic fascist , agrees with the ruling does not make it Constitutional. You and your ilk love to incite violence .


.

You don't have the slightest clue what a fascist is. Making your name calling the equivalent of listening to a 4 year old try out curse words.

The court not only should follow the legislative intent of a law, per the Federalist Papers, they're supposed to.

"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."

Federalist Paper 78

Remember, your only consistent attribute is ignorance. As you don't want to know the truth. You want the lies you've convinced yourself of.

 

[Skylar]

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW IS ****CONSTITUTIONAL*****


THE FASCIST RULING , DID NOT AND COULD NOT, EXPLAIN HOW IT CAN BE CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO FORCE FREEMEN TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE OR FACE A PENALTY.

That's one of their roles. In this case they were an appeals court for a lawsuit against the treasury department. Which is definitely their role, as they have jurisdiction over any case to which the US is a party. And they followed the legislative intent of the law.

As they should have.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

Kennedy always votes in support of the left. Doesn't matter who gave them their appointment.

 

[Contumacious]

As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

AS JAMES MADISON SAID, THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, OR WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.


THE SCOTUS WAS CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION HENCE IT CAN NOT AMEND OR ALTER THE DOCUMENT WHICH CREATED IT.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

Kennedy always votes in support of the left. Doesn't matter who gave them their appointment.

About 1 in 4 times. More on social issues. Less on fiscal ones. Nixing your 'they vote strictly on party line' narrative.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

Kennedy always votes in support of the left. Doesn't matter who gave them their appointment.

About 1 in 4 times. More on social issues. Less on fiscal ones. Nixing your 'they vote strictly on party line' narrative.

Not really. I got him confused with Reinquist. Who passed away. Looks like the only judges that are swing voters were nominated by conservatives. Imagine that.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION (1787) THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS OR WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.


.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

Kennedy always votes in support of the left. Doesn't matter who gave them their appointment.

About 1 in 4 times. More on social issues. Less on fiscal ones. Nixing your 'they vote strictly on party line' narrative.

Not really. I got him confused with Reinquist. Who passed away. Looks like the only judges that are swing voters were nominated by conservatives. Imagine that.

As a general rule justices tend to get more liberal as they stay on the bench.

 

[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.


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.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION (1787) THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS OR WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.


.

Interpreting the constitution is the role of the judiciary. Its what they are supposed to do.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION (1787) THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS OR WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.


.

No "or" involved, it means exactly what it says.

 

[BlueGin]

Seeing as how they vote strictly by party line ... Yes.

But they don't. Kennedy and Roberts were appointed by republicans. But voted with the majority.

Kennedy always votes in support of the left. Doesn't matter who gave them their appointment.

About 1 in 4 times. More on social issues. Less on fiscal ones. Nixing your 'they vote strictly on party line' narrative.

Not really. I got him confused with Reinquist. Who passed away. Looks like the only judges that are swing voters were nominated by conservatives. Imagine that.

As a general rule justices tend to get more liberal as they stay on the bench.

If they continually vote party line politics over law... they don't deserve to be there.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION (1787) THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS OR WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.


.

Interpreting the constitution is the role of the judiciary. Its what they are supposed to do.

Wrong, impartial application of the Constitution is the roll of the judiciary, the founders did the interpretation, that's why they wrote it down.