Latest from NJ

[Kagom]

I'm not so sure about that.

Up to Solomon, at least. And that's about half way into the Bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

 

[MissileMan]

Which you misinterpreted, apparently on purpose, to build your straw man.

Please demonstrate how I misinterpreted your statement. You said, "Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot."

How does this mean anything other than you believe that the legislature can ignore the courts if they wish? And based on that meaning, you were asked to provide a case where the legislature has ignored the court. Your reply to that request was your typical "I never said that".

 

[glockmail]

Up to Solomon, at least. And that's about half way into the Bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

"The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against the Lord." [your link]

Therefore polygamy is wrong and against God's plan.

 

[roadhouse158]

That's right. The Bible is against Polygamy. Yes polygamy was going on back then. So was murder, stealing, and adultry, and a hundred more things that were against God. Just because the Bible mentions something, doesn't mean it condones it.

 

[glockmail]

Please demonstrate how I misinterpreted your statement. You said, "Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot."

How does this mean anything other than you believe that the legislature can ignore the courts if they wish? And based on that meaning, you were asked to provide a case where the legislature has ignored the court. Your reply to that request was your typical "I never said that".

BACKGROUND

Missleman said: If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. ...

In response, Glockmail said: It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.

POSSIBLE TO IGNORE THE COURT RULING? YES.

The State's highest court has determined that our State Constitution requires adequate funding for schools, yet the Governor and the Legislature continue to ignore the constitution and the courts," said Karen Scharff, AQE co-chair. http://www.eisinc.com/release/storiesh/AQUAED.058.html

…he signed the letter because he is worried that the government's basic principle of the separation of powers is at stake in the gay marriage ruling. If the Legislature chooses to ignore the decision,… http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar..._ags_urge_passage_of_gay_marriage_law/?page=2

… A simple solution would be for the Florida State Legislature to move ahead, ignore the courts, and approve the State’s Electors for one candidate or the other before the 12 December deadline. http://www.freeflorida.org/articles/florida-legislature.htm

 

[Kagom]

"The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against the Lord." [your link]

Therefore polygamy is wrong and against God's plan.

I didn't claim it was sanctioned by God, I claimed that it was practiced in the Old Testament.

 

[glockmail]

I didn't claim it was sanctioned by God, I claimed that it was practiced in the Old Testament.

Yes, I agree. That's exactly what you said.

 

[MissileMan]

BACKGROUND

Missleman said: If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. ...

In response, Glockmail said: It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.

POSSIBLE TO IGNORE THE COURT RULING? YES.

Thanks for answering a question...finally.

In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.

In neither of your other two examples were the courts actually ignored, the possibility was raised. That carries the same weight as "Bush should ignore the constitution and run for a 3rd term".

I see a difference between a law being found unconstitutional (my original premise), and a party or parties violating a constitutional principle (as in your first example).

Do you know of any occurrences of a legislature telling a court to "pound sand" when a law was found unconstitutional? To my knowledge, in those types of cases, there are only two remedies, either change the law or change the constitution. I don't believe that "pound sand" is a viable alternative.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for answering a question...finally.

In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.

In neither of your other two examples were the courts actually ignored, the possibility was raised. That carries the same weight as "Bush should ignore the constitution and run for a 3rd term".

I see a difference between a law being found unconstitutional (my original premise), and a party or parties violating a constitutional principle (as in your first example).

Do you know of any occurrences of a legislature telling a court to "pound sand" when a law was found unconstitutional? To my knowledge, in those types of cases, there are only two remedies, either change the law or change the constitution. I don't believe that "pound sand" is a viable alternative.

Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?

 

[MissileMan]

Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?

The case about the budget is totally unrelated to the case involving marital rights. Glockmail posted the case about the budget as evidence that court rulings can be ignored.

 

[jillian]

Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?

The Court ordered that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but did not specify that the relationship be called "marriage".

You can liken this to the Court's Order in Brown that schools be desegregated or its Order in Bakke directing that schools create policies which affirmatively correct for past discrimination in their admission policies. (A bad policy, btw.. .but I didn't create it).

 

[Annie]

The Court ordered that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but did not specify that the relationship be called "marriage".

You can liken this to the Court's Order in Brown that schools be desegregated or its Order in Bakke directing that schools create policies which affirmatively correct for past discrimination in their admission policies. (A bad policy, btw.. .but I didn't create it).

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?

 

[jillian]

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?

Again, you're ignoring Bakke, in which the Court directed that policies be created that would lead to fairer admissions practices. The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.

 

[Annie]

Again, you're ignoring Bakke, in which the Court directed that policies be created that would lead to fairer admissions practices. The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.

So you are saying that Bakke was good law?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265

OMG!

 

[jillian]

So you are saying that Bakke was good law?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265

OMG!

Go back a couple of posts, Kathianne. I said Bakke was a bad policy.

That wasn't your question, though.

 

[Annie]

Go back a couple of posts, Kathianne. I said Bakke was a bad policy.

That wasn't your question, though.

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?

 

[glockmail]

Thanks for answering a question...finally.

In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.

In neither of your other two examples were the courts actually ignored, the possibility was raised. That carries the same weight as "Bush should ignore the constitution and run for a 3rd term".

I see a difference between a law being found unconstitutional (my original premise), and a party or parties violating a constitutional principle (as in your first example).

Do you know of any occurrences of a legislature telling a court to "pound sand" when a law was found unconstitutional? To my knowledge, in those types of cases, there are only two remedies, either change the law or change the constitution. I don't believe that "pound sand" is a viable alternative.

Th NY legislature told the NY Supremes to "pound sand" by ignoring them.

 

[glockmail]

.....The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.

They can direct all they want, but Separation of Powers dictates that the Legislature can tell them damn judges to pound sand.

 

[jillian]

They can direct all they want, but Separation of Powers dictates that the Legislature can tell them damn judges to pound sand.

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.

 

[glockmail]

.....

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).

.....

And the consequences are that the law becomes moot.

Once again, thanks for another neg rep for pointing out the truth about liberals, and about you.