The question is irrelevant.. The voters would never abolish the republican party.Originally Posted by Spexvet
The question is irrelevant.. The voters would never abolish the republican party.
Looks like you may have stumbled on this googling? Anyways, I'm wondering what impact cap and trade will have environmentally if we're one of the only ones (if not THE only ones) participating? It would seem like a more interesting idea if more countries (China) would get on board with it. I know we use more energy than other countries but China in particular is quickly catching up and I read an article the other day saying that their projected energy use is set to surpass us in the not-so-distant future. I'll try and find the article and attatch it.
"Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it." - Benjamin Franklin.
You people actualy believe that humans are causing global warming?
What happen the other 1000 times that global warming has happened on the earth? Do you guys even know how many ice ages there have been?
Seems like the earths normal cycle to me
Don't have time to go into everything you said at the moment, but
A) Yes many of the founding fathers believed in God, they also believed that God had no place inside the government.
B) Our system of government does NOT come out of the bible. I'll assume you're referring to the system of government that God gave the Jewish nation? as most people do? If memory serves they were "ruled" by God via the Prophets, and then eventually they startted bugging said prophets for a king so that they could be like all the other nations around them. And then were essentially told "well that's a crappy idea, and it won't end well but if you must...." Sooo... should we be a religious monarchy then? 'Cause that's the biblical precident.
Bart Smith, continuing to be awesome since 1982 so that you don't have to.
Love is a duet, each voice complementing each other and making them sound better than they would alone, each voice at times stepping back and letting the other shine. We've got a pretty good duet going Tina.
On April 28th, I'll be marrying my best friend. I can't wait!
I love when we stop discussing facts, theories, and principles and just start calling everyone socialists, communists, nazis and facists
This is the problem with the political system. Too many people are not willing to actually learn the real principles of how things work, so instead they resort to labelling. Now, you are not the only one. Liberals in this thread have labeled conservatives too. But why is it that people are so afraid of learning more?
I want judges that can read and interpret laws. Not someone who is going for popularity.
Its not about popularity.. its about our system. When the USA was founded we the people were at the top of the food chain. Since then we the people are now at the bottom. The California vote that was struck down is a prime example of the latter
Honestly, this is really pathetic.
I am disappointed, AGAIN, from this board. And I am not just talking about a couple of posters and I am not just talking about the liberals or the conservatives.
Why is it because we grow up believing in a certain political way do we look for answers that only satisfy our own political beliefs? Lately, I have tried to hold discussion on this board, not for name calling and not for political ideals, but for encouraging everyone to learn more about what makes our system tick. You should be able to enter an economics class and learn about the principles without only accepting those that back your current political views and turning those away that don't. The principles of the Democratic and Republican parties are not the real guiding principles of fact. Fact is fact, and it crosses party lines.
People support one political ideal and then look for facts that back up their views. It is stupid and moronic. It is pathetic and incompetent. You should be finding out the facts and then supporting the political ideals that back up those facts.
Open up a textbook people. Not one written by a politician or radio host. But something that you can actually learn from.
But once again, political insight on this forum can never move forward. We cannot work with each other to figure out real solutions, because we are too hard set into our political ideologies.
Judges are supposed to read and interpret laws. It is not about putting people here or there. Laws were created and the role of judges are to work with those laws. If you have an issue with the decisions, then change the laws.
They tried to change the law.. The people voted to make it law. The judges threw it out.
So the judges in this case should have worked with this law. Instead liberal judges like Sotomayer are what ever here name is. Said and i qoute " Of course Judges Make Law. Any first year law student knows that "
Look it up. Watch her on youtube say that. Facts is all i go by
If they try to change the law, with no legal bearings, then it is wrong and that is what we should be concerned about.
But if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, then there is a reason why it is overturned by the courts.
Then the only way you can change these laws is to change the Federal Constitution.
Oh GREAT.
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
In who's eyes is it unconstitutional?
Respond to this " Of course Judges Make Law. Any first year law student knows that "
Well what exactly did you have in mind? I've been saying this (for the most part) until I'm blue in the face here. Working together would require us to release our grip on the left or the right long enough to touch base in the middle. It's a tool used to divide us and we all know where that leaves us, scattered and confused. It makes us easier to control. I do find it humorous how many of us consider ourselves "independents" but really we've adopted a particular stance that aligns with one of the two establishment parties.
I would agree with you whole heartedly! There's this neat place in every town called a library, I wish more people would become life long autodidactict learners. Learning doesn't end at the end of your college careers, it just gets more interesting.
- Optician
- Frame Maker/Designer
- Teacher of the art of crafting handmade eyewear.
I think the one thing that is driving me nuts in these debates is that one group sees that high spending and high taxes is the right solution, and the other groups sees that low spending and low taxes is the right solution.
When you have a huge deficit and an unbelievable amount of debt, they are both the same thing and they both lead to more deficit and more debt.
The solutions to the problems that are being faced to day are to create more problems.
It would be the judges determine if the law is unconstitutional. They hear from lawyers representing the case, who argue both sides. And to make sure there is not a bias, there are 9 judges to confer on it.
Is there a better solution you may have?
OK, having actually been a first year law student, I can state categorically that any first-year law student had better know that judges make law, and have until the 20th century made virtually all law; a first-year student who does not know that is unlikely to progress through the remainder of law school successfully.
That's the common law tradition which we inherited from, and continue to largely share with, the British. While statutes can and do pre-empt common law, in most cases our statutes comprise elaborations of common-law principles. And statutes are invariably incomplete - in part because that's the only way they can get passed, and in part because writing a law that anticipates all possible fact patterns is beyond the capacity of mortals - so they usually require elaboration or extension when applied to real-world situations, and when that's necessary, courts turn to those judge-made common law principles to fill in the gaps. Those decisions have precedential authority, and so the law is changed, as it must be, if it is to be applied at all. That's the system we have. There's lots of judge-made law, and it's still being created. Every day.
If you think that statutes can simply be read and applied to facts without such interpretation, you haven't read many statutes, or many cases.
I believe it was Einstein that said: "You can not solve the problems of the world using the same level of thinking that created them in the first place."
I think the statement you make about the 'solutions...are to create more problems' is basically addressed by your earlier reply in which you wrote "we grow up believing in a certain political way...we look for answers that only satisfy our own political beliefs?" By that same token what do you think politicians WE elected to office are doing now?
"Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it." - Benjamin Franklin.
Really? At what cost? Protestant white male property owners only need participate. The genocide of the Native American, slavery and that biggest mistake giving women the right to vote must be to blame!
This nation was founded by conservatives and progressives and is still working on perfecting a balance of their ideals.
Like they say, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting different results."
Facts are what I go by also. Yes Judges make laws. Yes, nayone that has spent some time looking at the legal system realizes this.
An easy example is Roe vs Wade. The supreme court upheld the right of women to have abortions although there were no laws stateing that this was the case. Further there are states that allow for no abortions flying in the face of the supreme courts ruling. Yet we all often point to this ruling as if it were law.
Furthermore, the fouthe amendment, the one that references search and seizure: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and siezure, shall not be violater, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affermation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be siezed." was writen by the founding fathers in regards to the British Army and searching for taxable goods. The Founding Fathers could have no concept of telephones, cellphone, and the internet. Yet this piece of the constitution is used to create the decison by a judge to apply it to eavesdropping on calls or email. A Judge created a law stating that eavesdropping is illegal based on the constition.
More recently the Supreme Court changed its position on the second amendment, you remember thats the one that states; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Historically the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendmant could not be used as a right to gun owner ship. Up until recently the second amendment was interpreted to mean a militia's members can keep guns. (Roberts v. Baldwin, 1897; Presser v Illinois 1886;United States v. Miller,1939 ) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, it was modified to state that the second amendment included people not included in a militia. Thus Judges made law again.
In the end the argument is really more a question of, "Does the Judge in question support the individuals own belief system and does the judgement support the individuals beliefs?" That is why everytime there is an appointment to the supreme court and to a greater exstent the lower courts each political party wants to place judges that hold thier core beliefs in the seats. Its for this same reason that most lower courts go vacant.
I'll stop preaching now
- Optician
- Frame Maker/Designer
- Teacher of the art of crafting handmade eyewear.
I accept your apology.
Any law that is unconstitutional must be struck down. For instance, a law abolishing the repubican party. When that happens, something tells me you'll whine to the judges that it's not fair.
BTW, "we the people" were not at the top of the food chain. The interest of "we the people" are represented by the House, the interest of the each individual state is represented by the senate, the interest of the federal government is represented by the executive branch, and the interest of the constitution is represented by the judicial branch. Checks and balances, my education-needing friend, not food chain.
Which I would agree with. But I do assign responsibility for that to the government in general rather than blaming it all on one party. Then again if we all took a stance in the middle we'd have nothing to argue about and that's no fun either now is it?
"Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it." - Benjamin Franklin.
Then why would Sotomayer back away from her judges make law statement? She said she was mis understood with her statement. She told everyone at her hearings that she now believes judges do not make law. that law makers make the law.
If judges make the law.. why is congress there?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks