We use to teach our children

[OKTexas]

We interrupt this fantasy of no government intrusion into your lives to remind you that you have not yet purchased your mandatory health insurance through an approved government health insurance exchange from a government approved health insurance company, citizen! Failure to do so WILL be met with penalties!

Thank you. Carry on.
.

Penalties have been ruled unconstitutional, it's a tax don'cha know. It is not however a direct tax for which there is an exception in the constitution which is triggered by income. No this is a new unconstitutional direct tax, that is triggered by doing nothing. Go figure.

 

[OKTexas]

Because differing times present differing challenges. And the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret law presented to it....not to interpret law 100% unanimously.

Regards from Rosie

That's where you got it wrong, law is black and white, they're are not open to interpretation, a judge is there to apply law. A law applies to a situation or it doesn't, judges don't have the authority to legislate through interpretation, ligislation is reserved to congress or state legislatures. If judges didn't inject themselves into their decisions and only used the law they all should come to the same decision 99% of the time. Not be on the opposite side 99% of the time. That's why I have no respect for caselaw, too many individuals inserting their own idiology into the mix and in many cases ignoring actual law.

If you actually read the decision on Maobamacare written by Roberts, it was the biggest exercise in circular reasoning I've ever seen. I'm not a lawyer but I would love to publically debate him on that decision, I could rip him a new one.

Ok. Tilt your head to the side for a secand try to see it this way. SCOTUS takes on only cases of Constitutional import. When the cases become Constitutionally important.

When teens craved ads in the Sears and Roebuck catalog there was no need to rule on obscenity. When Hustler depicted full bore sex AND accused Jerry Falwell of incest with his mother....that's when it rose to the level of a Constitutional case. Seems it is free speech to call Falwell a mofo but explicit sex needs toning down due to community standards.

SCOTUS turns down more cases thanthey take. They hold up the law under examination to the Constitution and interpret the light shining thru from the Constitution thru the overlaying law and interpret the amount and quality of light that gets thru.

Figuratively, of course.

Given the subjectivity of determining the amount and quality of light that got thru.... .I.think it must be hard to have many lopsided decisions at all.

Ok, OK. Turn your head back. Neither of us wants it getting stuck that way.

Regards from Rosie

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take.

 

[g5000]

We interrupt this fantasy of no government intrusion into your lives to remind you that you have not yet purchased your mandatory health insurance through an approved government health insurance exchange from a government approved health insurance company, citizen! Failure to do so WILL be met with penalties!

Thank you. Carry on.
.

Penalties have been ruled unconstitutional, it's a tax don'cha know. It is not however a direct tax for which there is an exception in the constitution which is triggered by income. No this is a new unconstitutional direct tax, that is triggered by doing nothing. Go figure.

Hmmmm.

More taxes for ever-increasing budgets. To pay for ever-increasing government services. And yet, magically, government has not intruded into our lives more.

It's a Christmas miracle, Comrade!



.

 

[RosieS]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

 

[OKTexas]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

Saying that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution as written is really stupid. That is not what they do. They interpret the ******* thing.

I am convinced that those who call for such a thing.......for "following the Constitution as it was written because the words mean exactly the same as they did in the 18th century"....are doing nothing but trying to mask their own ignorance.

 

[RosieS]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

By deferring to amendment often you are negating the Constitutional duty of the SCOTUS to act as a check and balance of the other two. The SCOTUS prevents the Executive from overreach or enables extension of that power. They also make sure that the Congress doesn't impose unconstitutional measures on the states or the Executive...which groups of boneheads try to do from time to time.

If the states want a law their own legislatures enact it for review by their own Supreme Courts and it may or may not need SCOTUS review eventually.

It isn't constitutional to use the power to accept or reject Amendments as a replacement for the duty of the SCOTUS to check and balance. It is a usurpation of Constitutionally protected powers.

Amemding the Constitution was made difficult in order to protect from rule by force of numbers rather than force of law.

The same gridlock as in Congress purposely imposed on our Courts serves no one. Americans deserve the laws they want that pass Constitutional muster.

Regards from Rosie

 

[OKTexas]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

By deferring to amendment often you are negating the Constitutional duty of the SCOTUS to act as a check and balance of the other two. The SCOTUS prevents the Executive from overreach or enables extension of that power. They also make sure that the Congress doesn't impose unconstitutional measures on the states or the Executive...which groups of boneheads try to do from time to time.

If the states want a law their own legislatures enact it for review by their own Supreme Courts and it may or may not need SCOTUS review eventually.

It isn't constitutional to use the power to accept or reject Amendments as a replacement for the duty of the SCOTUS to check and balance. It is a usurpation of Constitutionally protected powers.

Amemding the Constitution was made difficult in order to protect from rule by force of numbers rather than force of law.

The same gridlock as in Congress purposely imposed on our Courts serves no one. Americans deserve the laws they want that pass Constitutional muster.

Regards from Rosie

What!!!!!!!

Your going in directions that haven't thus far entered in this conversation. I'm saying that the SCOTUS is bound to follow the Constitution as written. It is SCOTUS that is userping powers by giving themselves and the other two branches powers that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. What SCOTUS thinks does not alter what is written, yet they have on numerous occasions expanded the powers of government with only imagined authority. Moabamacare was just the latest one, direct taxiation is forbidden by article 1, section 9, the 16 admendment created an exception for income, nothing else. Now SCOTUS says a direct tax can be levied for doing nothing, that authority does not exist I don't care who wrote it, who passed it or who signed it. On top of everything Roberts took it upon himself to redefine the language in the legislation which he does not have the authority to do. He should have sent it back to congress with a note, that as written, it was unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

OK Texas wrote:

So everything in SCOTUS is subjective and opaque, sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad. Makes you wonder why the founders bothered to write the rule book, if no one obligated to follow it, even with that pesky oath they take. __________________

Keeping with your metaphor; if a fantastic engineer is hired he or she is getting kicked out after 8 years. No exceptions or extensions.

If you have crooks in the main offices and the ticket booths, etc. that is ok and they can stay indefinitely if locals want to keep their crook or n'er-do-well. The local yokels will keep them there for 30 or more years!

The SCOTUS way seems more sane to me. Enforced compromise and being the caboose for life. Good job.

Regards from Rosie

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

Saying that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution as written is really stupid. That is not what they do. They interpret the ******* thing.

I am convinced that those who call for such a thing.......for "following the Constitution as it was written because the words mean exactly the same as they did in the 18th century"....are doing nothing but trying to mask their own ignorance.

You want to have an adult discussion I'll entertain you views, you want to name call like a third grader, **** off.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No you got me wrong on that, I could care less about the courts tenure, I want them to follow the constitution as written, not as they feel it should be applied. The concept is simple, the Constitution means exactly the same today as the day it was written, if folks don't like what it says, then apply article 5, that is the path to a living Constitution, constitutionally there is none other. I'm damned tried of all 3 branches ignoring the Constitution except to bolster a political arguement, it is the law, I say stick to it.

Saying that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution as written is really stupid. That is not what they do. They interpret the ******* thing.

I am convinced that those who call for such a thing.......for "following the Constitution as it was written because the words mean exactly the same as they did in the 18th century"....are doing nothing but trying to mask their own ignorance.

You want to have an adult discussion I'll entertain you views, you want to name call like a third grader, **** off.

Please.........eat shit. Your take on the Supreme Court AND the USC is juvenile. I have no choice other than to poke fun at you. You might be an adult.....and you might demand to be treated as such....but you do not support your arguments as one.

I have no problem treating people with mature arguments like adults. Present one and you will soon find that out.

 

[OKTexas]

Saying that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution as written is really stupid. That is not what they do. They interpret the ******* thing.

I am convinced that those who call for such a thing.......for "following the Constitution as it was written because the words mean exactly the same as they did in the 18th century"....are doing nothing but trying to mask their own ignorance.

You want to have an adult discussion I'll entertain you views, you want to name call like a third grader, **** off.

Please.........eat shit. Your take on the Supreme Court AND the USC is juvenile. I have no choice other than to poke fun at you. You might be an adult.....and you might demand to be treated as such....but you do not support your arguments as one.

I have no problem treating people with mature arguments like adults. Present one and you will soon find that out.

I didn't write the Constitution, the founders did, they put on paper for a reason, in it they state without equivication that IT, is the supreme law of the land. Every member of the court took an oath to uphold it as the supreme law of the land as written and amended. These are facts, there's no disputing them. So explain how I'm being stupid expecting them to honor that oath? While your at it, explain how your not being stupid by thinking that oath is just a formality, because that oath is also required by that same document.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Reading material for you.

Originalism and the Supreme Court : SCOTUSblog

 

[OKTexas]

Reading material for you.

Originalism and the Supreme Court : SCOTUSblog

OK, so your not willing to support your own views, I get it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please. Just read about the things you are discussing. It might help.

 

[OKTexas]

Please. Just read about the things you are discussing. It might help.

I did, really I wasn't impressed, I think I could hold my own with any of them. I've heard their arguements before and I can use the Constitution itself to shoot them down.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK. You are right.

I am no match for your intellect and grasp of the USC.

My bad.

 

[craner]

Now we are only telling them what to parrot back and not teaching them how to think, for the last 40 years.

Cartoon made in 1959.
Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight! - YouTube

Great post! So true. I'm old enough to remember the David and Goliath shows too....they taught values. Now they all seem to have these little black boxes they all stare into and communicate with. Soon the art of speaking might be gone.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now we are only telling them what to parrot back and not teaching them how to think, for the last 40 years.

Cartoon made in 1959.
Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight! - YouTube

Great post! So true. I'm old enough to remember the David and Goliath shows too....they taught values. Now they all seem to have these little black boxes they all stare into and communicate with. Soon the art of speaking might be gone.

If you remembered...you would know that it was "Davey and Goliath".

 

[OKTexas]

OK. You are right.

I am no match for your intellect and grasp of the USC.

My bad.

It's simple, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it's not. There is no middle ground. Laws are kind of funny, they apply or they don't.

 

[craner]

Now we are only telling them what to parrot back and not teaching them how to think, for the last 40 years.

Cartoon made in 1959.
Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight! - YouTube

Great post! So true. I'm old enough to remember the David and Goliath shows too....they taught values. Now they all seem to have these little black boxes they all stare into and communicate with. Soon the art of speaking might be gone.

If you remembered...you would know that it was "Davey and Goliath".

My bad. I was thinking of the Biblical David....forgive me. DAVEY and Goliath was a fav of mine, as was Leave it to Beaver, The rifleman....shows that taught values.