Break up 9th District

[Bush92]

I am sick of the looney liberal 9th District playing politics with our legal system. 28 of these ham hocks were nominated by looney liberal POTUS. Gay marraige, gay boy Scouts, transgender bathrooms, and now allowing terrorist into our nation. Break them up.
Judges - Seniority List

 

[Camp]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

 

[Ozone]

Someone suggests that about the 9th district, it's the same spirit of breaking up a corporate monopoly to allow more freedoms for the people. Gets accused of fascism, which is exactly not what is promoted from the OP.

 

[Iceweasel]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

 

[elektra]

Yes, it is time to destroy the 9th Circuit court. Liberal Democrats rule us from the Justice System and from with the Bureaucracy.

The Bureaucracy needs to be downsized and privatized, and then made to follow the Law. We can hold private companies liable for breaking the Law, not the same with the Bureaucracy of the Government.

Courts are the same, lazy liberal democrat thinking people are drawn to easy government jobs, where they operate opposed to Law and the Constitution. It is time to rid our government of all individuals who operate against our laws. Judges and bureaucratic activist workers.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

Can they be recalled by voters? If so that is the method to pursue. If the voters agree with you you'll get your wish.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you don't always get your way. In this case take it to a higher court.

 

[Camp]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress can, but won't, eliminate 9th. And the judges are appointed for life.

Appeal the court's finding up the chain.

 

[Iceweasel]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

Conservative justices interpret strictly. Leftists, not so much.

 

[Iceweasel]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

Can they be recalled by voters? If so that is the method to pursue. If the voters agree with you you'll get your wish.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you don't always get your way. In this case take it to a higher court.

Golly really? You're on a goddamn roll.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

Can they be recalled by voters? If so that is the method to pursue. If the voters agree with you you'll get your wish.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you don't always get your way. In this case take it to a higher court.

Golly really? You're on a goddamn roll.

I do what I can.

 

[Camp]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

Conservative justices interpret strictly. Leftists, not so much.

That is nonsense. The founders knew it was nonsense too. There is no such thing as "strict interpretation" and the founders knew that. That is why judges research case laws and intent of the writers of laws. Final analysis of the meaning of laws is always based on a certain amount of subjective opinion. Again, the scholarly founders understood that.

 

[kaz]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

Talk about hysterically butt hurt. He didn't say any of that, moonbat

 

[Iceweasel]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

Conservative justices interpret strictly. Leftists, not so much.

That is nonsense. The founders knew it was nonsense too. There is no such thing as "strict interpretation" and the founders knew that. That is why judges research case laws and intent of the writers of laws. Final analysis of the meaning of laws is always based on a certain amount of subjective opinion. Again, the scholarly founders understood that.

Case law is based on previous rulings, which may or may not have followed the intent. Yes you can interpret laws strictly and judges should. Not try to divine what the authors really meant. That's lawyer spin.

 

[Camp]

Another post promoting fascism. Maybe we should do away with the courts and let the leader appoint tribunals. Steve Bannon could write the rules for them to follow.

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

Conservative justices interpret strictly. Leftists, not so much.

/
That is nonsense. The founders knew it was nonsense too. There is no such thing as "strict interpretation" and the founders knew that. That is why judges research case laws and intent of the writers of laws. Final analysis of the meaning of laws is always based on a certain amount of subjective opinion. Again, the scholarly founders understood that.

Case law is based on previous rulings, which may or may not have followed the intent. Yes you can interpret laws strictly and judges should. Not try to divine what the authors really meant. That's lawyer spin.

Again, deciding who is strictly interpreting and who is failing to do so is a subjective opinion. That is why our system has a process of appeals that allow other judges to review rulings. The reviews go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Even when they reach that point subjective opinions are used.
Do you think declaring corporations as equal to people or unlimited donations to politicians are strict interpretations of the constitution?

 

[Rob37]

The problem is leftist Dems making bad faith Appointments with the intent of having them legislate from the bench, and the Senate for uncritically confirming them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Iceweasel]

We should do away with all activists on the bench. A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, not create them based on their personal ideology.

It comes down to partisan and subjective opinions about which judges are interpreting and which judges are allowing personal ideology to influence their decisions. The system allows for appeals and decisions made in district courts to be overruled.

Conservative justices interpret strictly. Leftists, not so much.

/
That is nonsense. The founders knew it was nonsense too. There is no such thing as "strict interpretation" and the founders knew that. That is why judges research case laws and intent of the writers of laws. Final analysis of the meaning of laws is always based on a certain amount of subjective opinion. Again, the scholarly founders understood that.

Case law is based on previous rulings, which may or may not have followed the intent. Yes you can interpret laws strictly and judges should. Not try to divine what the authors really meant. That's lawyer spin.

Again, deciding who is strictly interpreting and who is failing to do so is a subjective opinion. That is why our system has a process of appeals that allow other judges to review rulings. The reviews go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Even when they reach that point subjective opinions are used.
Do you think declaring corporations as equal to people or unlimited donations to politicians are strict interpretations of the constitution?

Yes, because you don't understand the rulings. The Constitution doesn't PREVENT those things, that was the point. Nor did the ruling claim corporations were people or had all of the same rights. You simply parrot what you've heard that sounds good to you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's not called the 9th circus for nothing. The 9th is the most overruled of all circuits. It really is too big and does not protect the interests of most people in its jurisdiction.

 

[Silhouette]

I am sick of the looney liberal 9th District playing politics with our legal system. 28 of these ham hocks were nominated by looney liberal POTUS. Gay marraige, gay boy Scouts, transgender bathrooms, and now allowing terrorist into our nation. Break them up.
Judges - Seniority List

YES!!! Clean house. Review every Judge on the panels for signs of activism and bias and flush those turds down the commode. Judges may be appointed for life, but disability or malfeasance is grounds for terminating their tenure.

 

[Nosmo King]

I am sick of the looney liberal 9th District playing politics with our legal system. 28 of these ham hocks were nominated by looney liberal POTUS. Gay marraige, gay boy Scouts, transgender bathrooms, and now allowing terrorist into our nation. Break them up.
Judges - Seniority List

So you want to play politics with our legal system by breaking it up.

Are you serving irony sandwiches at your Super Bowl party, because you're choking on one now.