Garland warns of threats to democracy

[struth]

~YAWN~

haha yep what i expected from one of clinton and putin’s useful idiots

 

[BackAgain]

haha making law doesn’t mean the say what is the law. Courts do that. Hence why laws get overturned by Courts…geez

Haha. You’re being obtuse. Congress says what the law is because they write the laws.

SCOTUS says what some of those “laws” aren’t — because if the purported law is in violation of the Constitution, it is void. So the court says what the law is NOT.

It is truly a mystery why you find this difficult or wrong. It isn’t hard. It’s easy. And it isn’t wrong. It’s a basic precept of our system.

I’m not sure exactly where our conversation diverged into sort of parallel tracks. But I bet I’m right: I suspect we are actually more in agreement than in disagreement.

Courts can and do help clarify some ambiguities in laws. And courts can and do nullify laws that violate the Constitution. But they don’t say what the law is and it isn’t their job or duty to do so. (By the way, at least one court decision agrees with the way you couched it. It said that courts “emphatically”
“say” what the law is. But that opinion is itself nonsense, for the reasons I stated above.)

They don’t. Or at least they shouldn’t. They have a good claim to have the authority to invalidate laws that aren’t authorized by our Constitution. But that’s not the same as saying what the law IS.

 

[BackAgain]

Prove there was an effort to steal the election, fool.

No proof? Then STFU.

Biden didn't need to put forth any "effort" to steal the election, you moron. He whipped Trump's ass but good.

Now fuck off, duped idiot.

As I have already noted and as others have already shared on numerous occasions, the efforts are not even honestly deniable. So your request for me to stfu is denied. Gfy.

Now go eat some more shit, you delusional and dishonest pissant.

In the meanwhile, as I noted, it’s a crying shame (and I think a mod mistake) that this thread got shuttered: https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/no-evidence-of-voter-fraud.939806/post-28624693

 

[struth]

Haha. You’re being obtuse. Congress says what the law is because they write the laws.

SCOTUS says what some of those “laws” aren’t — because if the purported law is in violation of the Constitution, it is void. So the court says what the law is NOT.

It is truly a mystery why you find this difficult or wrong. It isn’t hard. It’s easy. And it isn’t wrong. It’s a basic precept of our system.

I’m not sure exactly where our conversation diverged into sort of parallel tracks. But I bet I’m right: I suspect we are actually more in agreement than in disagreement.

Courts can and do help clarify some ambiguities in laws. And courts can and do nullify laws that violate the Constitution. But they don’t say what the law is and it isn’t their job or duty to do so. (By the way, at least one court decision agrees with the way you couched it. It said that courts “emphatically”
“say” what the law is. But that opinion is itself nonsense, for the reasons I stated above.)

They don’t. Or at least they shouldn’t. They have a good claim to have the authority to invalidate laws that aren’t authorized by our Constitution. But that’s not the same as saying what the law IS.

no i am it being obtuse. There is a difference between saying what is the law, and creating law

It is the courts not the legislature that applies the law and says what is law. it is the court that applies congressional act, or executive act to the law and say what they did or didn’t do is the law.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Merrick Garland warned of threats to US democracy, citing violence including the 2021 riot at the Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump, rollbacks in voting rights and possible legislative efforts to overturn the outcome of elections.
“A democracy cannot survive if its citizens forsake the rule of law in favor of violence or threats of violence,” Garland said in a commencement speech Sunday at Harvard University, his alma mater.

MSN

www.msn.com

Comment:
Do you think that Garland is paranoid and delusional, or is he a political partisan hack propagandist?
Voter Fraud and Election Rigging Crimes are the threat to our democracy.
Illegally using the FBI, DOJ, CIA, FISA Courts and the IRS as political weapons is a threat to our democracy.
Censorship of dissenting opinions is a threat to our democracy.
Using the DOJ as a political weapon to brand dissenters as "domestic terrorists" and "white supremists" is a threat to our democracy.
Calling election laws that protect everyone's Right to Vote from voter fraud "voter suppression" is a threat to our democracy.
It looks like the Democrats are who "forsake the rule of law"
They are creating a one party police state where people can be arrested and imprisoned for their political beliefs.
The Democrats are like an Orwellian Nightmare coming true.

The greatest threat to our system of gov't is the democratic party.

 

[scruffy]

The only threat to the USA is the democrat party Marxists.

Not the only, but definitely one of the biggest.

 

[BackAgain]

no i am it being obtuse. There is a difference between saying what is the law, and creating law

It is the courts not the legislature that applies the law and says what is law. it is the court that applies congressional act, or executive act to the law and say what they did or didn’t do is the law.

Actually, the “difference” you point to is not substantial. The legislature writes the laws and therefore is the body that says what the law is.

By contrast, at least in our system, the courts aren’t supposed to do any legislating. Separation of powers. They have claimed (and I happen to agree with the notion) that they can void a “law” at odds with and in violation of the Constitution. As I said before, that is a power to declare what the law isn’t.

Along those lines, it does sometimes happen that otherwise legitimate laws conflict with one another or one may come into conflict against a guaranteed right. Such disputes (cases and controversies) are within the proper ambit of the courts. If a court thereby has to decide which law supersedes another law or whether a right may trump a law (or vice versa), I maintain that is not “saying what the law is.” It is similar but not quite the same thing.

 

[struth]

Actually, the “difference” you point to is not substantial. The legislature writes the laws and therefore is the body that says what the law is.

By contrast, at least in our system, the courts aren’t supposed to do any legislating. Separation of powers. They have claimed (and I happen to agree with the notion) that they can void a “law” at odds with and in violation of the Constitution. As I said before, that is a power to declare what the law isn’t.

Along those lines, it does sometimes happen that otherwise legitimate laws conflict with one another or one may come into conflict against a guaranteed right. Such disputes (cases and controversies) are within the proper ambit of the courts. If a court thereby has to decide which law supersedes another law or whether a right may trump a law (or vice versa), I maintain that is not “saying what the law is.” It is similar but not quite the same thing.

No, the legislature doesn't say what the law is, the Court does. That's why we have seperate branch of govt doing that, it's called seperation of powers.

When the legislature creates a law, it can be challenged....and fought in Court, same with if a Admistrative agency makes a rule...it too can be challenged in Court, and then it's the Court, not the legislature, or the Executive branch administrative agency that says what the law is

 

[LeftofLeft]

Garland is telling the truth. All of our rights are under assault from radical righty wing Republicans like you.
There was not vote fraud found that affected the election. Several republicans have been arrested for voter fraud.
Federal law enforcement agencies were not used for political purposes. It was Trump who tried to use these agencies to remain in power after he lost.
Republicans are the ones who want to censure. Several laws have been thrown out as unconstitutional.
You do not have the right to threaten school boards.
We don't need any new election laws as there was no evidence of fraud in 2020. Giving someone a bottle of water is not fraud.
Republicans are the ones who break the law when they don't agree with it.
Right wing Republican fascists are killing people.
The Republicans are a Orwellian nightmare.

You also don’t have the right to threaten Courts with violence if they decide an outcome you don’t agree with. You don’t have the right to burn and loot stores and call it free speech or standing for social justice. You don’t have the right to rip someone from their car and beat the crap out of them because they made a wrong turn into your protest and/or open fire on them because they immediately retreated and drove in the opposite direction.

 

[eagle1462010]

Anyone who believes the lies spewed by Trump & his criminal mob is a gullible dupe.

Which explains why you believe it.

No one believes you Moonbat

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, the “difference” you point to is not substantial. The legislature writes the laws and therefore is the body that says what the law is.

By contrast, at least in our system, the courts aren’t supposed to do any legislating. Separation of powers. They have claimed (and I happen to agree with the notion) that they can void a “law” at odds with and in violation of the Constitution. As I said before, that is a power to declare what the law isn’t.

Along those lines, it does sometimes happen that otherwise legitimate laws conflict with one another or one may come into conflict against a guaranteed right. Such disputes (cases and controversies) are within the proper ambit of the courts. If a court thereby has to decide which law supersedes another law or whether a right may trump a law (or vice versa), I maintain that is not “saying what the law is.” It is similar but not quite the same thing.

You're both arguing from a false premise, as if the federal legislature were the normal regulatory power regarding the election of federal officers in the first place.

The Constitution empowers the legislatures of the several states to regulate elections for federal officials, not Congress! Congress only has the oversight power to alter existing state regulations.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.​

The Court's 2013 decision merely ended the enforcement of that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibited nine southern states and a number of counties in other states, many of which are located in northeastern states, by the way, to change their election laws without advance federal approval. If anything was constitutionally dubious all these years, it was Congress' peremptory prohibition against those states' power to regulate "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives."

In any event, the prohibition was no longer necessary, and the Court fully restored to those states their constitutionally delegated power.

The Court's 2021 decision regarded a challenge to Arizona's voter ID law, which, of course, was ridiculous.

Hence, the Court did not do what struth implied, and the Court most certainly does have the constitutional power to check Congress when it oversteps its constitutionally delegated power of oversight.

Your guys' blather is the noise of ignorance, the ill-informed opinions of persons who don't know the constitutional facts of the matter, the historical nature of the dispute, and the prevailing circumstances of the dispute.

 

[BackAgain]

No, the legislature doesn't say what the law is, the Court does. That's why we have seperate branch of govt doing that, it's called seperation of powers.

When the legislature creates a law, it can be challenged....and fought in Court, same with if a Admistrative agency makes a rule...it too can be challenged in Court, and then it's the Court, not the legislature, or the Executive branch administrative agency that says what the law is

Your wrong. The courts claim to say what the law is. But they’re wrong. They are BOUND by the law. Obvious example: the Constitution and the legislature tell the courts what their jurisdiction is. They can’t say what the law is when they are denied jurisdiction.

 

[BackAgain]

haha says the guy that thinks seperate of powers means the legislature makes law and the. says what is the law! hahaha

At least I’m not the retard that denies the facts. That’s you, you retard.

 

[struth]

Your wrong. The courts claim to say what the law is. But they’re wrong. They are BOUND by the law. Obvious example: the Constitution and the legislature tell the courts what their jurisdiction is. They can’t say what the law is when they are denied jurisdiction.

the courts tell the legislature they are bound by the constitution. They say what the constitution says

Jurisdiction of the federal court is determined by the constitution

 

[BackAgain]

the courts tell the legislature they are bound by the constitution. They say what the constitution says

Jurisdiction of the federal court is determined by the constitution

The Constitution tells the court what it’s jurisdiction is. So does the legislature. So, obviously, the courts don’t get to say what the law is. They are designed to bend the knee to the law.

And yes, as we developed this separation of powers and checks and balances, courts can also scuttle laws which don’t comply with the Constitution, which is what I already said.

 

[struth]

The Constitution tells the court what it’s jurisdiction is. So does the legislature. So, obviously, the courts don’t get to say what the law is. They are designed to bend the knee to the law.

And yes, as we developed this separation of powers and checks and balances, courts can also scuttle laws which don’t comply with the Constitution, which is what I already said.

The Constitution sets the limits of the legislature, the Courts say what they Constitution says. The Courts say what the law is.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution sets the limits of the legislature, the Courts say what they Constitution says. The Courts say what the law is.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Yes. I already noted that ^ claim was made. And it’s facially wrong. The Constitution sets limits on the court and allows the legislature to also place limits on the court. True fact. You could even look it up!

Courts interpret laws which come into conflict with other laws or with the claims of individuals’ or groups’ rights. Those are “cases and controversies.” That’s not “saying what the law is.”

Saying what the law is is emphatically not the province of the courts.

 

[Mac1958]

Evidence of a stolen election?
None?
That's what I thought, dumbfuck.

Doesn't matter. Remember their goal:

 

[struth]

Yes. I already noted that ^ claim was made. And it’s facially wrong. The Constitution sets limits on the court and allows the legislature to also place limits on the court. True fact. You could even look it up!

Courts interpret laws which come into conflict with other laws or with the claims of individuals’ or groups’ rights. Those are “cases and controversies.” That’s not “saying what the law is.”

Saying what the law is is emphatically not the province of the courts.

yes they interpret the law and say what the law is. Yes the Constitution is the supreme body that the court follows and tells the legislature what the law is and if they violated it. They say what is the law.

The legislature makes laws but they don’t say what the law is, the courts do, and can strike down legislative acts

 

[BackAgain]

yes they interpret the law and say what the law is. Yes the Constitution is the supreme body that the court follows and tells the legislature what the law is and if they violated it. They say what is the law.

The legislature makes laws but they don’t say what the law is, the courts do, and can strike down legislative acts

No. They interpret laws in the event of “cases or controversies” where they have jurisdiction to do so. They don’t say what the law is.

The legislature, in making the laws, is the body that says what the law is. Courts are subservient TO the law as long as the law is Constitutional.