Latest from NJ

[Gunny]

I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"

Maybe I'm missing something?

You are arguing with someone who obviously does not believe in the division of powers as they are spelled out. Leftist judicial activism is almost sport nowadays in this country. completely ignoring the fact that the court does not posess the power to legislate, nor to order the legislature to legislate. The power is assumed by the judiciary, and all too often left unchallenged by the legislature.

The court can declare law invalid, unconstitutional or whatever, but it has no jurisdiction in dictating how it should be fixed. The court can offer suggestions in its findings, nothing more. All the legislature has to do is let a ruling stand, and that in fact becomes law.

In this case, the court is CLEARLY out of bounds ordering he legislature to create law based on judicial whim.

 

[Gunny]

You've made the same statement three times and each time, you've been told your wrong and asked to substantiate your position. So, I'll try this one last time, cause you're gettin truly boring, babe.... and the trolling is getting kinda long in the tooth.

But here goes...

No.... it can't.... see if you can't follow... separation of powers means each branch has it's own job....

Executive...administers
Legislature... enacts laws
Courts.... decide if laws are constitutional and adjudicates disputes.

The legislature can no more tell the judges to "pound sand" than you can tell the legislature you won't obey the law (at least w/o accepting the consequences).

Once again... thank you for pontificating about legal issues about which you clearly have no understanding.

The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.

 

[Annie]

The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.

That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.

 

[glockmail]

The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.

Thank you, Gunny. I trust that you also noticed Jillian's elitist attitude that I was "pontificating about legal issues about which clearly have no understanding".

Man, I got a back itch. Back itch, Back itch, Back itch. Ba- itch!

 

[glockmail]

That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.

You go, sista!

 

[Annie]

You go, sista!

I am, brother.

 

[glockmail]

I am, brother.

Oh, brother.... :rotflmao:

 

[Gunny]

That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.

It's called "deflection." The ruling supports their agenda. The end is allowed to justify the means for leftist agenda. Conservatives just aren't allowed to use that rule.

 

[MissileMan]

And the consequences are that the law becomes moot.

Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?

 

[Annie]

Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?

My take, is the legislature cannot be forced to correct a law that is not there. Now maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew, the courts are not allowed to make law?

 

[Gunny]

Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?

Depends on whether action is required, does it not? In many cases, the legislature just lets the ruling stand, and it becomes de facto law.

If a change to the law is required by the Constitution, then the legislature is duty-bound to make the correction(s) to the law. But they are duty bound to the Constitution, not the whims of the judiciary.

 

[MissileMan]

I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"

Maybe I'm missing something?

From what I read of the ruling, the court found a disparity in the rights/privileges/benefits given to straight couples that aren't afforded to gay couples. IMO, the court gave the legislature the "lesser of two evils" to rectify the problem. The alternative would be to remove the rights/privileges/benefits bestowed on married couples by the state. Can you imagine the rats nest that would create? The legislature does have another relief at its disposal too...they can change the constitution so that a disparity is NOT unconstitutional.

 

[MissileMan]

Depends on whether action is required, does it not? In many cases, the legislature just lets the ruling stand, and it becomes de facto law.

And in this case the court made no ruling that could be turned into de facto law, but appropriately kicked it back to the legislature for crafting.

 

[Annie]

From what I read of the ruling, the court found a disparity in the rights/privileges/benefits given to straight couples that aren't afforded to gay couples. IMO, the court gave the legislature the "lesser of two evils" to rectify the problem. The alternative would be to remove the rights/privileges/benefits bestowed on married couples by the state. Can you imagine the rats nest that would create? The legislature does have another relief at its disposal too...they can change the constitution so that a disparity is NOT unconstitutional.

I don't think that is imcumbent on me or the state. Seems the court overreached, so far it's not in their realm. Granted it was unanimous, but I've a feeling the SCOTUS is going to be involved in this?

 

[glockmail]

Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?

I'm implying exactly what I've stated; nothing more.

 

[Gunny]

And in this case the court made no ruling that could be turned into de facto law, but appropriately kicked it back to the legislature for crafting.

And again, it is not the judiciary's place to "kick" anything back. It can recommendations in its findings.

If the judiciary finds a law unconstitutional, that law is unenforceable by judicial decree; which, pretty-much renders it null and void. No action is required UNLESS the legislature chooses to take action.

The judiciary and legislature are separate but equal branches of government, but your opinion that the legislature is subservient to the judiciary is a BIG problem in this country nowadays. Judicial activism is wrong, and just to clarify ... wrong on BOTH sides of the aisle.