MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Most of the time it seems to mean "the courts made a decision I don't like" or "the courts acknowledged a group I think is icky has rights too".

That is a gross simplification so typical in the left these days.

Maybe they do, but I don't, so I hope the question will be answered.

In short, the Judicial Branch has final say on interpreting what the law means. No matter what it actually says.

So you can get judges making decisions that have no actual basis in the law and your only recourse is to try a higher ranking judge, because otherwise there's no actual oversight.

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Appeals is the oversight mechanism. You can’t say ‘there is no oversight but the oversight’.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Korematsu, Dred Scott and a bunch of the FDR era rulings on topics like the commerce clause are pretty good examples of SCOTUS just making shit up.

[Spirit of Hope]

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Korematsu, Dred Scott and a bunch of the FDR era rulings on topics like the commerce clause are pretty good examples of SCOTUS just making shit up.

TBF in the case of Dred Scott if you are holding people as slaves it isn't a huge step to say they aren't really people and thus can't be citizens. Complete BS, but then slavery is completely BS.

[The Emerald Legion]

That is a gross simplification so typical in the left these days.



In short, the Judicial Branch has final say on interpreting what the law means. No matter what it actually says.

So you can get judges making decisions that have no actual basis in the law and your only recourse is to try a higher ranking judge, because otherwise there's no actual oversight.

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Appeals is the oversight mechanism. You can’t say ‘there is no oversight but the oversight’.

Yes. Because if I told you my oversight was the same organization as myself, you would be totally fine with it.

[Duhon]

from trump tweeting the all-clear at home with new cases and death tolls in italy and iran, to ken cucinelli hamfistedly banging on overloaded johns hopkins servers for access to covid info... so glad this admin scaled back cdc funding and dismantled the entire infrastructure responsible for responding to pandemics of this caliber, huh?

thanks for not thinking beyond the tip of your dicks, trumpsters! may you enjoy that sharpied economy!

[Bear Stearns]

Alex Brown & Company
Bankers Trust
Bank One
Barings
Bear Stearns
Chase Manhattan
Dean Witter
Dillon Read & Co.
Drexel Burnham
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette
EF Hutton
First Boston
Fenner & Beane
Hornblower & Weeks
Kidder Peabody
Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Lehman Brothers
LF Rothschild
Paine Webber
Salomon Brothers
Shearson American Express
Smith Barney

[Gormwood]

Alex Brown & Company
Bankers Trust
Bank One
Barings
Bear Stearns
Chase Manhattan
Dean Witter
Dillon Read & Co.
Drexel Burnham
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette
EF Hutton
First Boston
Fenner & Beane
Hornblower & Weeks
Kidder Peabody
Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Lehman Brothers
LF Rothschild
Paine Webber
Salomon Brothers
Shearson American Express
Smith Barney

Listing your alternate accounts like GMS now?

[Bear Stearns]

Alex Brown & Company
Bankers Trust
Bank One
Barings
Bear Stearns
Chase Manhattan
Dean Witter
Dillon Read & Co.
Drexel Burnham
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette
EF Hutton
First Boston
Fenner & Beane
Hornblower & Weeks
Kidder Peabody
Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Lehman Brothers
LF Rothschild
Paine Webber
Salomon Brothers
Shearson American Express
Smith Barney

Listing your alternate accounts like GMS now?

Bear Stearns, Vince Vaughn, and Drexel Burnham Lambert are my only alts

[Cannot think of a name]

Alex Brown & Company
Bankers Trust
Bank One
Barings
Bear Stearns
Chase Manhattan
Dean Witter
Dillon Read & Co.
Drexel Burnham
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette
EF Hutton
First Boston
Fenner & Beane
Hornblower & Weeks
Kidder Peabody
Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Lehman Brothers
LF Rothschild
Paine Webber
Salomon Brothers
Shearson American Express
Smith Barney

Listing your alternate accounts like GMS now?

I just put this cat on ignore so I wouldn't have to wade through this dumbass spam and you go and quote it so it's back again.

[Gormwood]

I just put this cat on ignore so I wouldn't have to wade through this dumbass spam and you go and quote it so it's back again.

My bad.

[Kowtowannia]

Listing your alternate accounts like GMS now?

Bear Stearns, Vince Vaughn, and Drexel Burnham Lambert are my only alts

I thought Vince Vaughn was OEP?

[Nakena]

Listing your alternate accounts like GMS now?

I just put this cat on ignore so I wouldn't have to wade through this dumbass spam and you go and quote it so it's back again.

Bear Stearns is a quality poster.

[Kowtowannia]

I just put this cat on ignore so I wouldn't have to wade through this dumbass spam and you go and quote it so it's back again.

Bear Stearns is a quality poster.

A meme god, truly. He's like the patron saint of yuppies, embodying all the aspects: good, bad, and ugly. :^))))))))))

[Cannot think of a name]

I just put this cat on ignore so I wouldn't have to wade through this dumbass spam and you go and quote it so it's back again.

Bear Stearns is a quality poster.

I have no control over your foes list.

[Albrenia]

I'm wondering what the long list of names is in reference to.

Obviously they look like corporations or banks or something, but I'm wondering what the list is supposed to say?

[Kowtowannia]

I'm wondering what the long list of names is in reference to.

Obviously they look like corporations or banks or something, but I'm wondering what the list is supposed to say?

BS is an investment banker IRL.

[Telconi]

I'm wondering what the long list of names is in reference to.

Obviously they look like corporations or banks or something, but I'm wondering what the list is supposed to say?

BS is an investment banker IRL.

Was

[Kowtowannia]

BS is an investment banker IRL.

Was

Isn't he still one? In my defense, I've been gone for a long time.

[Telconi]

Was

Isn't he still one? In my defense, I've been gone for a long time.

I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to the company.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Korematsu, Dred Scott and a bunch of the FDR era rulings on topics like the commerce clause are pretty good examples of SCOTUS just making shit up.

Korematsu and Dred Scott were bad decisions, but they had a basis in law. They were not completely made up. They were based on (wrongful) interpretations of existing law, but they were based in law. The judge didn't just create law, they merely misinterpreted existing law, and that is an important distinction.

The commerce clause is pretty clear, though. In this case, it's just you not liking a decision. That does not make it made-up law. The Supreme Court gave a definition of what the word 'among' meant in the context of the commerce clause, and they concluded that it meant something different than 'between', which is also used in the constitution. Just because you don't like the federal government regulating commerce doesn't mean it does not have the power to. Start a political campaign, alter the constitution. Or change commerce law, that works too.

Alright, give me an example of a US judge making a decision with no basis in law. Because judges really do mind what the actual law says.

Appeals is the oversight mechanism. You can’t say ‘there is no oversight but the oversight’.

Yes. Because if I told you my oversight was the same organization as myself, you would be totally fine with it.

It's not the same organisation, though. The different courts are different organisations, and more importantly, different people. The fact that the judiciary is the final arbiter in law comes with a certain lack of external oversight, but so far, that has worked pretty well, especially since the Supreme Court, the final arbiter, is so rigorously vetted by politicians and the public alike.

The fact that decisions are often overturned proves that the system works.

Alex Brown & Company
Bankers Trust
Bank One
Barings
Bear Stearns
Chase Manhattan
Dean Witter
Dillon Read & Co.
Drexel Burnham
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette
EF Hutton
First Boston
Fenner & Beane
Hornblower & Weeks
Kidder Peabody
Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Lehman Brothers
LF Rothschild
Paine Webber
Salomon Brothers
Shearson American Express
Smith Barney

The law:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

What those companies did:
Enter into an agreement that limited the trade in 'odd-eighth' quotes on the stock market among them, thus raising cost for people trying to invest in the market.

The court:
Found that that agreement is "a contract, in restraint of trade among the several States", and declared the agreement illegal.


This is just application of the law as it exists. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it was made up.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

In short: there is a difference between judges applying a law you don't like and judges making up the law. The former is the fault of the legislature, the latter the fault of the judiciary. The latter (almost) never happens. What happens far more often is a wrongful interpretation of existing law, and it's good to be critical of that.

However, what you should not do is blame the Democrats for somehow using the judiciary as a weapon, and then claim that because of that the judiciary should be weaponised against them. Either you are in favour of an independent judiciary, or you are in favour of a partisan judiciary, but you cannot have it both ways. I am in favour of an independent judiciary.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Let’s hope a meaningful trade deal and military alliance with India can be forged from this summit. India is the best bet to stopping China’s imperialism

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Let’s hope a meaningful trade deal and military alliance with India can be forged from this summit. India is the best bet to stopping China’s imperialism

But who will stop India’s imperialism?

[Loben The 2nd]

Let’s hope a meaningful trade deal and military alliance with India can be forged from this summit. India is the best bet to stopping China’s imperialism

But who will stop India’s imperialism?

In Kashmir?

[Proctopeo]

Let’s hope a meaningful trade deal and military alliance with India can be forged from this summit. India is the best bet to stopping China’s imperialism

But who will stop India’s imperialism?

When the time comes, that question will be answered.