Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thank the (US) Founding Fathers for an independent judiciary!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #46
    Originally posted by Sikander

    It's certainly much simpler than any other sort of law. All I have to do is read a few pages to get the idea behind the law, rather than volumes of common law.
    Simpler for the rough idea. But its inherent ambiguity can make it very complicated on specific issues.

    "I find that the vast majority of the time a good decision by a lower court ends up prevailing in the end, which is why I am willing to put my money down."

    Yes, it raises the chances. But then it's a politically charged case. I just have very little confidence in this SC to make a political stand against this administration.

    But maybe the extreme asscrawling in Bush v Gore is not a general rule.
    “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

    Comment

    • #47
      Originally posted by HershOstropoler

      Simpler for the rough idea. But its inherent ambiguity can make it very complicated on specific issues.
      Fortunately I don't generally deal with the law at that level. I am enough of an amateur lawyer to guess with a decent probability what sort of defense a lawyer might use, or how the SC is going to rule on a given set of cases.

      Originally posted by HershOstropoler
      "I find that the vast majority of the time a good decision by a lower court ends up prevailing in the end, which is why I am willing to put my money down."

      Yes, it raises the chances. But then it's a politically charged case. I just have very little confidence in this SC to make a political stand against this administration.

      But maybe the extreme asscrawling in Bush v Gore is not a general rule.
      Why would they need to make a political stand? Bush owes them, not vice versa. They gave him the presidency, and he didn't appoint a single one of them. Most importantly the law is on their side in regards to this case. In comparison to the election mess, this case also seems to be fairly simple. Finally, there is no reason why they even have to take the case if they don't want to deal with Bush and company.

      My only worry is that the court has been no friend to the various protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Bryer tends to line up with the conservative block a lot here for some reason. But this case has so many connections to core constitutional issues that it will probably be upheld for several reasons, depending on which Justice you ask.
      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment

      • #48
        "They gave him the presidency"

        I do not think that's the case, but if so, why would they do it? The interpretation they used is absurd.

        "My only worry is that the court has been no friend to the various protections from unreasonable search and seizure."

        Seeing how far the police state has grown, I can't have faith in this court. It is easy to cook up some "war"-related excuse.
        “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

        Comment

        • #49
          This isn't the first ruling of this kind. Last year the courts ordered that Padilla be allowed to see his lawyer, and the government refused. Just as it has refused court orders to release transcripts of its energy policy meetings. In the 1980s, a suspected Irish Republican terrorist was held illegally by the US government for well over a decade, despite courts repeatedly ordering the US government to release him into the US (and not deport him).

          When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?
          Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

          Comment

          • #50
            Originally posted by Berzerker
            Wartime and rebellion allow for suspending habeus corpus.
            Bush hasn't suspended habeus corpus, so this is a moot point.
            Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

            Comment

            • #51
              When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?


              Nothing. The executive has that right.
              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

              Comment

              • #52
                Since when?
                “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                Comment

                • #53
                  Originally posted by HershOstropoler
                  Since when?
                  Since Jackson uttered the words "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.".
                  I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                  For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Which is descriptive, not normative.
                    “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                      This isn't the first ruling of this kind. Last year the courts ordered that Padilla be allowed to see his lawyer, and the government refused.
                      Refused subject to litigation on the issue, which has ended unless the government wishes to appeal.

                      Just as it has refused court orders to release transcripts of its energy policy meetings.
                      That was appealed and overruled, on (correct) grounds of Executive Privilege.

                      In the 1980s, a suspected Irish Republican terrorist was held illegally by the US government for well over a decade, despite courts repeatedly ordering the US government to release him into the US (and not deport him).
                      Case? People can be held pending appeals, unless bail is set - and in certain immigration and extradition cases, bail need not be set.

                      When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?
                      Cite the officials involved for contempt of court, and imprison them for up to two years on each count. And impeach, since contempt of court is falls within the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors. Nixon backed down with SCOTUS, and if the government outright defies the FDC on this matter (as opposed to legally filing appeals) , it will have no sympathy anywhere in the judicial system to a challenge of judicial branch authority.
                      When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        And impeach, since contempt of court is falls within the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors.


                        The President won't be impeached for not following the court when dealing with someone like Padilla or IRA members.

                        As DD said, Jackson has showed the precedent that the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary can't make it do anything by itself.
                        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          So the rule of law has been dead since Jackson's days?
                          “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            chegitz -
                            Bush hasn't suspended habeus corpus, so this is a moot point.
                            Tell that to Jose Padilla.

                            Ramo -
                            What else would the government do? Raise taxes, draft people? Better this, IMO. If the situation warrants it, the change in the Constitution would have overwhelming popular support.
                            Like I said, the government and the people would be pre-occupied with the situation and wouldn't need another lengthy legal process to deal with. We are invaded and you want everyone to try and amend the Constitution before denying the invaders due process?

                            Use the army infrastructure... We should have made the effort wherever possible.
                            Oh, you mean like Bush wants to do with military tribunals? Look at the population for the South and North during the Civil War before suggesting the effort was even feasible.

                            Yep, at least we should have tried to. As long as the war didn't end first.
                            Why? Trying millions of Axis soldiers during WWII would have tied up our infrastructure at a time we were fighting for our lives.

                            I don't accept the legitimacy of the treason charge. I think there should be a charge so that PoW's can be detained up to the remainder of the war (if necessary).
                            Neither do I, which is why I put "treason" in quotes, but you didn't respond to my charge that southernors who supported the rebellion were just as "guilty" as the soldiers. But these POW's, wouldn't you have to convict them first before detaining them for the remainder of the war?

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              So the rule of law has been dead since Jackson's days?


                              Only if Congress doesn't have a backbone... oh wait, when is the last time they had a backbone .

                              Usually Presidents are wary to do this because it is a PR nightmare.
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Like Truman's steel industry nationalisation ?
                                “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                                Working...
                                X