Legal my ass....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Phee, generalization is exactly what Law and Government are about. You can't please everyone all the time. You try for most people, most of the time.

[phee]

Ok, let me rephrase my question then.

Why are you dissecting the grammar of my dialog rather than debating the logic and/or factualness of it? Does it somehow bare witness to a flaw?

That is much better... and no.... no flaw

[BrassFusion]

lol nice threadjack guys.

no, seriously, it wasn't meant as an attack.... i'm sorry if it was just a typo or you're German or something and used to capitalizing all nouns.

as for the responsibility to introduce bills as part of a democracy (we're a republic, btw)... there are some bills that, if passed, would be unconstitutional and should really never see daylight because it's a waste of our time and money.

Like anti-flag burning amendments. they infringe on a personal right for no reason at all.

Let's say the entire state of Texas felt that black people should be kept in zoos. Should their congressperson bow to their wishes and draft an amendment as such to be summarily squashed? Waste of time!

[phee]

Phee, generalization is exactly what Law and Government are about. You can't please everyone all the time. You try for most people, most of the time.

I was not disagreeing with your point persay...

Just the statement that "No Offense" is meant to offend

[BrassFusion]

Ok, let me rephrase my question then.

Why are you dissecting the grammar of my dialog rather than debating the logic and/or factualness of it? Does it somehow bare witness to a flaw?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was Orwellian and creepy to me, as in, "The Divine Leader shall Escort We Lambs to the Promised Land." As for the logic end of it, I don't argue that it's not the responsibility of the president to protect us, but I also don't think that's his motivation.

[torn asunder]

lol nice threadjack guys.

:laughing

my apologies - i thought it best to try to head off any confusion, though, before someone got upset...

we now return you to your regularly scheduled governmental debate/discussion!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

lol nice threadjack guys.

no, seriously, it wasn't meant as an attack.... i'm sorry if it was just a typo or you're German or something and used to capitalizing all nouns.

as for the responsibility to introduce bills as part of a democracy (we're a republic, btw)... there are some bills that, if passed, would be unconstitutional and should really never see daylight because it's a waste of our time and money.

Like anti-flag burning amendments. they infringe on a personal right for no reason at all.

Let's say the entire state of Texas felt that black people should be kept in zoos. Should their congressperson bow to their wishes and draft an amendment as such to be summarily squashed? Waste of time!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are a Constitutional Republic, a form of Democracy.

In the case above, thats why we have the Supreme Court. It's thier job to decide whats Constitutional and whats not. Not yours. Not mine. Not Congresses, nor the Presidents. Nor is it an activists Judge's.

[BrassFusion]

We are a Constitutional Republic, a form of Democracy.

In the case above, thats why we have the Supreme Court. It's thier job to decide whats Constitutional and whats not. Not yours. Not mine. Not Congresses, nor the Presidents. Nor is it an activists Judge's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"activist judge" is one of the worst bullshit terms i've heard, probably... maybe I should call Scalito a "reactionary" judge? a "lazy" judge?

at any rate... flooding the courts with bills that are clearly unconstitutional to any layman (or the congressperson considering it) is a waste of resources.

and if you have what you would call an "activist" judge appointed to the court, then it WOULD be his or her place to decide what's constitutional.

[phee]

"activist judge" is one of the worst bullshit terms i've heard, probably... maybe I should call Scalito a "reactionary" judge? a "lazy" judge?

at any rate... flooding the courts with bills that are clearly unconstitutional to any layman (or the congressperson considering it) is a waste of resources.

and if you have what you would call an "activist" judge appointed to the court, then it WOULD be his or her place to decide what's constitutional.

Keep it friendly please....

[torn asunder]

In the case above, thats why we have the Supreme Court. It's thier job to decide whats Constitutional and whats not. Not yours. Not mine. Not Congresses, nor the Presidents. Nor is it an activists Judge's.

my question to this would be, if a judge somewhere doesn't make the decision to decide whether or not something's constitutional, how would the supreme court necessarily even know about it? or, if they do, and nobody challenges it, why would they bother considering it? am i making any sense? (i feel very "unclear" today...) :confused

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and if you have what you would call an "activist" judge appointed to the court, then it WOULD be his or her place to decide what's constitutional.

Only until it's appealed. The Supreme Court has final say.

[BrassFusion]

Only until it's appealed. The Supreme Court has final say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose I meant appointed to the *supreme court. Thing is, just because they're Supreme Court appointees doesn't make them any smarter or stupider or more or less objective than any other judges 'cross the land... they just know the right people and have the right record and have the best opinions according to the president who appoints them. I know presidents aren't supposed to let personal bias on particular issues creep into their supreme court appointments... but there's NO WAY to not let that color your decision. I was really surprised and pleased when he "tried" to appoint that woman, what's her name... but it's possible he knew it wouldn't go through and only went through the motions to throw a bone to the liberals. The world can be a shitty place sometimes.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

my question to this would be, if a judge somewhere doesn't make the decision to decide whether or not something's constitutional, how would the supreme court necessarily even know about it? or, if they do, and nobody challenges it, why would they bother considering it? am i making any sense? (i feel very "unclear" today...)  :confused

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In most cases some local or regional Judge makes a decision. Hopefully, they use law to make that decision. Activist judges make decisions based on a personal agenda rather than the law. In these cases, it almost always goes through the appeal process and ends up in the Supreme Court. In other cases the lower courts pass it up to a higher court rather than make a ruling because they realize that they do not have the power to make decision that affects the whole nation.

[BrassFusion]

In most cases some local or regional Judge makes a decision. Hopefully, they use law to make that decision. Activist judges make decisions based on a personal agenda rather than the law. In these cases, it almost always goes through the appeal process and ends up in the Supreme Court. In other cases the lower courts pass it up to a higher court rather than make a ruling because they realize that they do not have the power to make decision that affects the whole nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

are you implying that the judge had a personal agenda in mind when she declared warrantless wiretapping illegal according to the first and fourth amendments?

[torn asunder]

In most cases some local or regional Judge makes a decision. Hopefully, they use law to make that decision. Activist judges make decisions based on a personal agenda rather than the law. In these cases, it almost always goes through the appeal process and ends up in the Supreme Court. In other cases the lower courts pass it up to a higher court rather than make a ruling because they realize that they do not have the power to make decision that affects the whole nation.

right, which was my point - perhaps this judge made this decision in order to "force" a supreme court consideration/decision on the matter. if this is done, as you said, using the law on which to base their decision, i think this can only be a good thing.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I suppose I meant appointed to the *supreme court. Thing is, just because they're Supreme Court appointees doesn't make them any smarter or stupider or more or less objective than any other judges 'cross the land... they just know the right people and have the right record and have the best opinions according to the president who appoints them. I know presidents aren't supposed to let personal bias on particular issues creep into their supreme court appointments... but there's NO WAY to not let that color your decision. I was really surprised and pleased when he "tried" to appoint that woman, what's her name... but it's possible he knew it wouldn't go through and only went through the motions to throw a bone to the liberals. The world can be a shitty place sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't have to be smarter, but they do have to have better Judgment. They would never get to that position if their judgments and law history did not warrant it. They have final say, on everything. The only thing they can't change is a Constitutional Amendment. Nor can the President.

[BrassFusion]

right, which was my point - perhaps this judge made this decision in order to "force" a supreme court consideration/decision on the matter. if this is done, as you said, using the law on which to base their decision, i think this can only be a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it's the same principle as a congressperson drafting a bill to assuage the Texans... Kind of.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Brassfusion - yes. She has a history of pushing the Liberal agenda. Most of her rulings have been overturned as unconstitutional.

[BrassFusion]

They don't have to be smarter, but they do have to have better Judgment. They would never get to that position if their judgments and law history did not warrant it. They have final say, on everything. The only thing they can't change is a Constitutional Amendment. Nor can the President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's assuming the President would never appoint some blowhard psychopath like Clarence Thomas. Shit happens, and snakes are sometimes on planes, y'know.

[BrassFusion]

Brassfusion - yes. She has a history of pushing the Liberal agenda. Most of her rulings have been overturned as unconstitutional.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There isn't a "liberal" agenda any more than there's a "conservative" agenda, I hope you understand. Now, if it was a judge trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade because she personally felt uncomfortable with the idea of a fetus being aborted, that might be construed as personal...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It's the Congress person from Texas's job to draft bills that make Texans happy.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

There isn't a "liberal" agenda any more than there's a "conservative" agenda, I hope you understand. Now, if it was a judge trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade because she personally felt uncomfortable with the idea of a fetus being aborted, that might be construed as personal...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should read up on the last 30 years of US politics. Both sides have an agenda. As do the moderates.

[BrassFusion]

It's the Congress person from Texas's job to draft bills that make Texans happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it's the judge's job to compare laws to the intent of the constitution. I can live with that.

[BrassFusion]

Perhaps you should read up on the last 30 years of US politics. Both sides have an agenda. As do the moderates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, mark, i just said that neither side has any more of an "agenda" than the other. good to have you back, btw

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Clarence Thomas is a Texualist, as in, he follows the letter of the law as it is written in the Constitution. The people that accuse him of being an ideologue have never looked into his actual rulings. They swing to both sides of the fence.