Judicial Activism vs Interpretation

[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.

I have been calling for Judicial reform ever since Newt Gingrich brought it up in 2012.

WHAT IS JUDICIAL REFORM


WHY CAN WE DEMAND THAT SCOTUS CONFORMS TO ARTICLE III


SCOTUS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR.


AS THOMAS JEFFERSON STATED , THE JUSTICES ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE "MERE MACHINES"


.

 

[hortysir]

The definition of 'judicial activism':

A court decision that RWnuts don't like.

Just as you and yours truly hated it when SCOTUS rules that corporations are people too.

But, to the OP; To suggest that the SCOTUS isn't a political entity is naive.
They, like all other politicians, are swayed by the winds of popular opinion.
They were for slavery before they were against it. Segregation? Same thing.

My question is what's the proper waiting period before a case can be revisited?

 

[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.

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

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

 

[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.

I have been calling for Judicial reform ever since Newt Gingrich brought it up in 2012.

WHAT IS JUDICIAL REFORM


WHY CAN WE DEMAND THAT SCOTUS CONFORMS TO ARTICLE III


SCOTUS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR.


AS THOMAS JEFFERSON STATED , THE JUSTICES ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE "MERE MACHINES"


.

And who gives a shit what Thomas Jefferson thought? The man didn't write any part of the constitution, he wasn't a delegate for any state, he didn't attend a single session of the constitutional congress, he didn't participate in any debate, he wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written, debated or ratified.

In short, you can't pick a founding father whose personal opinion on the constitution is more gloriously irrelevant. You pick Jefferson because he says what you believe. Not because he has any insight or particular influence.

 

[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.

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

SO HOW DO WE THE PEOPLE ASCERTAIN THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS "INTERPRETED" AND NOT AMENDED OR ALTERED?


.

 

[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 the wrote it down.

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Also if you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Typing in large font makes me appear smarter!

The only distinction between "Judicial activism" and "Judicial interpretation" is whether the speaker agrees or disagrees.

No....there are very distinct things in interpretation...like "The states shall..." that is pretty obvious that it is the states that are required to set up exchanges....saying that not changing the meaning will hurt health insurance is not interpretation, it is activism.....a judge doesn't get to change what the law says, or what parts of the law says....that is for the legislature...

Scalia criticized the court's interpretation, which he said "means nullifying the term 'by the State' not just once, but again and again."


He called the decision "interpretive jiggery-pokery," a "defense of the indefensible" and "pure applesauce."


And he wrote about the "somersaults of statutory interpretation" the court performed and said that "words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"

 

[Skylar]

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 the wrote it down.

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.

Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.

And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.

Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.

But they aren't, are they?

Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.

Federalist Paper 78

Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?

Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.

 

[Contumacious]

something from the Texas Governor. Lets hope your Governor stands up for your rights

SNIP:
Governor Abbott Statement On Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage
Friday, June 26, 2015 • Austin, Texas • Press Release
Learn more about:Governor's Initiatives »




Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:

“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

all of it here:
Office of the Governor - Greg Abbott - Press Release Governor Abbott Statement On Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage

Governor Abbott is pandering to the religious nuts in his state. They vote.


The gov did not, and could not, explain why "A" can not form a marital relationship with whomever he /she chooses.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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 the wrote it down.

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.

Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.

And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.

Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.

But they aren't, are they?

Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.

Federalist Paper 78

Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?

Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.

Tell me, how do you ascertain the meaning of the written word without looking at the definition and common usage of those words in place at the time the words were put on paper?

Hint, word usage evolves over time and dictionaries are changed to reflect common usage at the time of their publication.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

He votes in favor of the law and constitution; neither of which you have the faintest clue about.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".

 

[Contumacious]

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.

The problem is NOT lifetime appointments. The problem is that miserable scumbags who have never read, heard of, or are fmiliar with the US Constitution (1787) are appointed to the SCOTUS.


.

 

[regent]

But not all framers were satisfied completely with the finished Constitution, nor were all the states, and that lack of complete satisfaction still exists.

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.


.


.

IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR.


AS THOMAS JEFFERSON STATED , THE JUSTICES ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE "MERE MACHINES"


.

And who gives a shit what Thomas Jefferson thought? The man didn't write any part of the constitution, he wasn't a delegate for any state, he didn't attend a single session of the constitutional congress, he didn't participate in any debate, he wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written, debated or ratified.

In short, you can't pick a founding father whose personal opinion on the constitution is more gloriously irrelevant. You pick Jefferson because he says what you believe. Not because he has any insight or particular influence.

Jefferson had tremendous influence in the writing of the Constitution, and that was because Jefferson's right hand man, Madison, the father of the Constitution, was there doing as Jefferson would have done. In fact, Madison was probably as strong a delegate as Jefferson because of Jefferson's reluctance to talk before a group. In any case the Constitution as the Declaration of Independence were part of Jefferson's contribution to the new government.

 

[boilermaker55]

To keep the argument honest?
Then you proceed with the comment you made...for someone to admit something about themselves you demand.
That is the furthest thing from wanting an honest anything
Fuck off.

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".

.

 

[Skylar]

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 the wrote it down.

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.

Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.

And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.

Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.

But they aren't, are they?

Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.

Federalist Paper 78

Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?

Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.

Tell me, how do you ascertain the meaning of the written word without looking at the definition and common usage of those words in place at the time the words were put on paper?

Hint, word usage evolves over time and dictionaries are changed to reflect common usage at the time of their publication.

So not even an attempt to define any of the terms in the constitution you insist are so simple to define. Despite all of your assurances of how easy and simple it would be, with nothing more than a dictionary.

Yet you can't to do it.

You're demonstrating how subjective these terms are and how difficult they are to define. Your every rout is another proof of my point. These are not easy terms to define, especially in the specific terms that real world law requires. Interpretation is required. Especially when one right is balanced against another. Which you also run from like they were on fire.

Oh, and did you finally read the Hamilton quote? You know the 'it' and the 'them' in ' It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'. Just because you refuse to address it doesn't mean Federalist Paper 78 vanishes:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

But you know better than Hamilton, huh?

Um, no.

 

[hazlnut]

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 should just begin all your threads with "I am a Fucker of Pigs, Goats, and eater of Man ASS."

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The problem is NOT lifetime appointments. The problem is that miserable scumbags who have never read, heard of, or are fmiliar with the US Constitution (1787) are appointed to the SCOTUS.


.[/QUOTE
"miserable scumbags who have never read, heard of, or are fmiliar with the USConstitution (1787)"

You just described yourself.

 

[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.

So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".

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

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.

Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.

And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.

Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.

But they aren't, are they?

Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.

Federalist Paper 78

Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?

Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.

Tell me, how do you ascertain the meaning of the written word without looking at the definition and common usage of those words in place at the time the words were put on paper?

Hint, word usage evolves over time and dictionaries are changed to reflect common usage at the time of their publication.

So not even an attempt to define any of the terms in the constitution you insist are so simple to define. Despite all of your assurances of how easy and simple it would be, with nothing more than a dictionary.

Yet you can't to do it.

You're demonstrating how subjective these terms are and how difficult they are to define. Your every rout is another proof of my point. These are not easy terms to define, especially in the specific terms that real world law requires. Interpretation is required. Especially when one right is balanced against another. Which you also run from like they were on fire.

Oh, and did you finally read the Hamilton quote? You know the 'it' and the 'them' in ' It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'. Just because you refuse to address it doesn't mean Federalist Paper 78 vanishes:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

But you know better than Hamilton, huh?

Um, no.

I'll tell ya what, I will get my hands on a dictionary from the time and we'll continue the conversation then. I'm not going to play your word games.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

So Hamilton didn't know what the judiciaries role is.....while you do? Um, no.

And of course, the constittution is ridiculously vague in many instances. What is 'unreasonble' search and seizure? What is 'cruel' punishment? What is an 'imfamous' crime? What constitutes 'due process'? What is 'equal protection'? What is 'natural born'.

These are terms that require interpretation. Just obliterating your 'it means what it says' claims. For fuck's sake, there's an entire amendment that makes vague reference to 'reserve rights' but doesn't say what any of them are. And there is no room for interpretation?

And what of when 2 rights come in conflict with each other? Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are questions that the Constitution doesn't answer. But the judiciary is faced with. Not only can the judiciary interpret laws and the constitution.....they MUST interpret the laws and the constitution. There's no other way to adjudicate.

Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.

Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.

Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.

And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.

Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?

These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.

But they aren't, are they?

Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.

Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.

Federalist Paper 78

Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?

Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.

Tell me, how do you ascertain the meaning of the written word without looking at the definition and common usage of those words in place at the time the words were put on paper?

Hint, word usage evolves over time and dictionaries are changed to reflect common usage at the time of their publication.

So not even an attempt to define any of the terms in the constitution you insist are so simple to define. Despite all of your assurances of how easy and simple it would be, with nothing more than a dictionary.

Yet you can't to do it.

You're demonstrating how subjective these terms are and how difficult they are to define. Your every rout is another proof of my point. These are not easy terms to define, especially in the specific terms that real world law requires. Interpretation is required. Especially when one right is balanced against another. Which you also run from like they were on fire.

Oh, and did you finally read the Hamilton quote? You know the 'it' and the 'them' in ' It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'. Just because you refuse to address it doesn't mean Federalist Paper 78 vanishes:

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.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

But you know better than Hamilton, huh?

Um, no.

I'll tell ya what, I will get my hands on a dictionary from the time and we'll continue the conversation then. I'm not going to play your word games.

What a "dictionary" from the time says is completely and utterly irrelevant. A dictionary definition of "due" and "process" does not tell us a damn thing about how to apply to term to matters that arise. The notion that constitutional law requires nothing more than applying the "original" meaning of words in the constitution appeals only to those without the intellectual capacity to truly understand the strength of the Constitution. Hanging people for stealing horses was not considered "cruel and unusual" then. Society has changed; our values have changed what we know about human nature has changed. The words of the constitution do not change, but how they are applied is different today.