Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:28 am
I'm with you. I'd love to see a refutation of judicial review or an argument in favor of repealing Article III of the Constitution.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Our Constitution wrote:Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?
A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.
Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.
SaintB wrote:You REALLY have no understanding of the US Constitution....
MisanthropicPopulism wrote:The right-wing is apparently getting their panties in a knot over a federal judge overruling a state constitution. Apparently state constitutions overrule the US Constitution
MisanthropicPopulism wrote:
The right-wing is apparently getting their panties in a knot over a federal judge overruling a state constitution. Apparently state constitutions overrule the US Constitution
Farnhamia wrote:I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.
The Rich Port wrote:Farnhamia wrote:I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.
If we're lucky, they'll keep their traps shut permanently and not remind the vast population of chimps that watch FAUX News that it's once again time to rig votes in California. But I digress.
Give 'em some time... And if not, I'll bet they'll give Zephie a job.
SaintB wrote:Our Constitution wrote:Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?
A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.
Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.
You REALLY have no understanding of the US Constitution....
Our Constitution wrote:Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?
A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.
Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.
The Rich Port wrote:SaintB wrote:You REALLY have no understanding of the US Constitution....MisanthropicPopulism wrote:The right-wing is apparently getting their panties in a knot over a federal judge overruling a state constitution. Apparently state constitutions overrule the US Constitution
Did no one else notice the irony? The country's name is Our Constitution, FER CRISSAKES.
Srsly, Our Constitution, you picked a horrible nation name.
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Hey now, there's no rules that says you can't call your nation "Our Constitution" just because you haven't read it.
Farnhamia wrote:MisanthropicPopulism wrote:
The right-wing is apparently getting their panties in a knot over a federal judge overruling a state constitution. Apparently state constitutions overrule the US Constitution
I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.
Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Neo Art wrote:Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Seriously, it's posts like this that I don't even bother replying to these kinds of topics anymore.
Muravyets wrote:Neo Art wrote:Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Seriously, it's posts like this that I don't even bother replying to these kinds of topics anymore.
You should at least though make enough of an appearance to put an official "Real Lawyer Sez Dis Is Crap" statement on the record. It's a like a civic duty or something.
Muravyets wrote:Neo Art wrote:Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Seriously, it's posts like this that I don't even bother replying to these kinds of topics anymore.
You should at least though make enough of an appearance to put an official "Real Lawyer Sez Dis Is Crap" statement on the record. It's a like a civic duty or something.
The Resurgent Dream wrote:I'm 2/3rds a lawyer. Does that count?
Kiskaanak wrote:The Resurgent Dream wrote:I'm 2/3rds a lawyer. Does that count?
What the fuck does that even mean?
In Canada, you don't get to call yourself a lawyer unless you've actually passed the Bar. In fact, you can be disbarred before you ever get barred for passing yourself off as any sort of lawyer, when you aren't.
Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.1
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.2
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Its Tyranny and for proof, allow me to show what our Founding Fathers thought of such abuses of power:3,4Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them
5/9 Judges on the Bench to make an Injunction or Stay on a Law voted in by the Public. Giving a single judge this type of power is not what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.5
Our Constitution wrote:Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?
A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional.6 In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.7
Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.8
Kiskaanak wrote:The Resurgent Dream wrote:I'm 2/3rds a lawyer. Does that count?
What the fuck does that even mean?
In Canada, you don't get to call yourself a lawyer unless you've actually passed the Bar. In fact, you can be disbarred before you ever get barred for passing yourself off as any sort of lawyer, when you aren't.