An important distinction:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Court acts according to law, and not according to the will 0f the people. Like the Bill of Rights, that is a fundamental concept to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
|
An important distinction:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Court acts according to law, and not according to the will 0f the people. Like the Bill of Rights, that is a fundamental concept to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Athos ;that's the theory . But what happens when the Courts impose their will ? Where is the remedy ? Throughout this discussion I have given examples where the court decisions do not protect liberty .
Tomder---
Impeachment is the remedy.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Perhaps you should give this one away you are just chasing your tail.
There isn't a non-political solution.
Tut
If the electorate is well informed and does their job with due diligence, we don't have to worry about some rascals getting together and packing the courts with puppets to do their bidding.
Just for the record it was the right wing judges that made the claim that corporations are people two, and the congress can still change the law, and make it illegal to have a super pact, or put limits on what ANYONE can give to candidates. Maybe not with the ninnies you have now, but nothing is stopping us from getting some real candidates for the people who will outlaw lobbyist, or impeach judges who hear cases where the wife works for the side that's bring a case before it.
The process is there, so are checks and balances, and procedures, and remedies to one branch craping on another. Now whether they use them or not is another matter, but we all can prod them with a sharp stick to get what we want.
We can interpret the law any way we want if we started to vote seriously, and start ignoring the far right pandering about making a weaker government. That's when the judges rule, when legislature, and executive branches are weak.
So don't get thrown off by Newts pandering, he is trying to get elected, and I don't see that happening, because he is a crazy old coot who thinks he is smart. I don't, and there are still some smart people in America who dismiss him for the power grabbing nut he is.
We better watch who we vote for this time folks, because it is about defending our rights, and for that we have to have a strong effective congress, and a president to match to keep the balance right as the fore fathers intended. Balance was their intent. Ruled by US, the voters. Anything less is unacceptable.
Lovely aspiration Tal but the reality is something else. The voters get to exercise an opinion only every so often and their opinions waver like a flag blowing in the wind. There is no system which says you can't do something that wasn't put before the electorate as policy. So the voters don't rule anything but the ballot box. They don't rule the appointments to the Supreme Court and all they can do is send a message to Senators and the President each other two years. etc. Nothing says they have to head the messageQuote:
Ruled by US, the voters. Anything less is unacceptable.
Since the decisions made are usually political instead of based on the Constitution ,and judicial appointments are almost always political ,I have no problem with political remedies . Was Lincoln's defying of the SCOTUS ridiculous decision in the Dred Scott case wrong ? History supports his call.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We've gone back and forth.. Please just answer one question.. IF the system you propose is implemented, do you think the Bill of Rights will survive?
Ok, one more question. Which right winger would VOTE to supply a criminal defendant with an attorney at TAXPAYERS expense??
excon
I'm guessing all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Would you pass that doobie over here?
excon
Why would right wingers object to the 6th amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
On another note...
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You got me.
Let me rephrase the question.. Let's say that a black guy raped a 3 year old white girl, and burned up her mother. The cops THINK he has an accomplice who is about to rape another 3 year old, and the cops want to find out about it.
But, the guy doesn't want to talk. He wants a lawyer.
Under THIS scenario, which right winger would vote to give THIS guy a lawyer at taxpayers expense? And, DON'T take a hit before you answer.
excon
Steve's response applies in that scenario as well .
Something about that word "shall"
That hasn't changed meaning over the years
Now ;I think what you are talking about is Miranda . Miranda was an expansion of the 6th Amendment by a judicial interpretation out of whole cloth . It should've been done through a legislative act or another amendment and not by judges deciding it and creating the remedy from the bench.Quote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
I'd be more interested in knowing which right winger would refuse the accused counsel, regardless of the crime or his race. Why would we cut off our nose to spite our face? I'd hate to be accused of a crime and be denied my rights as an American, wouldn't you?
Hello again, tom: You too, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yet, the word "shall" has been in the 6th Amendment from the get go. If right wingers were so constitutionally obligated to adhere to the word "shall", why didn't they for the first 150 years of our existence? Where's the law they passed making it so? How many people went to jail because the word "shall", wasn't enforced?
Perhaps IF they did, the Supreme Court wouldn't have HAD to. But, they didn't, and the Supreme Court did. And, even then, the right wingers on the court voted against it 4 to 5.
So, if right wingers have a chance to REVERSE it today, and under the Gingrich proposal they can, in my view they absolutely WOULD...
Now, you're trying to tell me that not only WOULDN'T they REVERSE it, they'd vote to AFFIRM it.
Or maybe you're NOT telling me that. I can't tell. In one post you say of course, a defendant should be supplied with a lawyer - the Constitution says so... Then above, it looks like you're saying that Miranda rights AREN'T really rights. Therefore, you WOULDN'T supply the defendant with a lawyer...
I'm confused. Please, please pass that joint my way. It's got be a lot better than the stuff I got.
excon
That isn't what I said at all .The 6th is violated only if a defendant is refused representation . Miranda expands the 6th to say that law enforcement must tell them they have the right to representation. That is a new right that wasn't in the 6th .Quote:
Then above, it looks like you're saying that Miranda rights AREN'T really rights. Therefore, you WOULDN'T supply the defendant with a lawyer...
Again ;the issue is that the courts imposed a solution that is legislative perusal . If the courts grab the power to create governing rules from the executive or legislative branches then they are exceeding their constitutional mandate.. period.
We have power over the elected branches; they work for us. If we want the government to pass a particular law, we can urge the elected branches to vote for it. If we don't like a Representative ,Senator or a President, we can vote him out and replace him with someone else who will respond better to our wishes.
We have no such power over judges . The Constitutution does not grant the Court the power to rule via Stare Decisis. And above all it does not grant the Courts legislative authority. The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is so few elected leaders have challeged the premise.
That's what those right-wingers said at the time (two of which were nominated by Democrats Kennedy and Truman by the way).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Then it seems logical to conclude we make sure our elected official work for us and give us what we want, under the law of course.Quote:
The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is so few elected leaders have challeged the premise.
So why hasn't Clarence Thomas recused himself in what APPEARS to be a conflict of interest?
Unlike Kagan, Thomas did not personally participate as counsel regarding Obamacare, and his wife is not on the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
She isn't on the court but she is in his bed, and works for the ones arguing the case.
Recusal is one of those rules judges get to pick to comply with... I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Well how about this...
Judges could be elected by the people for a limited term. Say 4 years or whatever you think is appropriate under your system.
Campaigning for elections by judges has strict provisions. Limited to such things as age, schooling, i.e. where they went to high school and where they obtained their legal qualifications. Other qualifications and relevant work experience making them suitable for the job.
Basically I am suggesting a very boring and limited 'political' campaign by judges. Speculation by the judges themselves and the media in relation such things as," believes in a original intent interpretation of the constitution", or "believes the constitution is a living entity", is strictly forbidden for the duration. You get to vote for SCOTUS judges only knowing their qualifications and work experiences. The amount of money spent on advertising is strictly limited and strictly policed. No donations and the like.
Don't get too upset it is only a suggestion.
Tut
A bit radical Tut and they surely don't need another excuse for an election over there. They do need to remove the political element from the appointments though, whether that is done with fixed terms, say 20 years or appointment by election by members of congress rather than the President nominating them. It seems to me the whole process is a bit like a raffleQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Not radical at all... that is the way most local state and local judges are selected and it seems to work.
I'd be happy with term limits .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well there you go the answer was in your own backyard all the time.
I just found this quite by accident.
Sca.cobbcountyga.gov/meet_judges.htm
From the information these judges have provided can you tell which party they favour?
Tut
You may have noticed I did not bring up objections to how states and townships select judges . That system is quite accountable ;and as you point out ,not subject to the objections that people on this discussion brought up about judges needing to be above the political process.
I was critiquing the Federal system only. Quite frankly ;states and locals are free to pick any process they are comfortable with so long as it complies with Constitutional laws and rights . The judges in my town I know by name and they have my full trust and support.
Hello again Tut:
That'll never work. From MY perspective, I'd want to KNOW how a judge felt about capital punishment before I voted for him. I don't want to GUESS.
In any case, how is that NOT putting our rights up for a vote?
excon
We elect our judges in Texas and the detractors say that makes it too political. Hogwash, I say it makes therm accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
True, but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway. Voting in this situation is only a slightly better option.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As it stands they are up for decree regardless of the political persuasion of SCOTUS . For example, 'traditional intent' interpretation is a political position. 'Living breathing' interpretation is also political. Regardless of the emphasis it will always be a political decision handed down by SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon,2981993
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Speech,
Yes, it is political and one needs to be careful not to turn the judicial system into a political football. That's way I suggested using strong guidelines for the candidates. No politics form anyone allowed for a period before and after. That is, until the count is finalized. Especially no comment from the media.
Tut
Yup... many of them are stealth even the ones like Kagan and Sotomayor who did their best to obfuscate during confirmation hearings .Quote:
but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway
Look at Souter appointed by GHW Bush. He never would've been appointed if he didn't hide his politics. Stevens appointed by Ford has trended liberal also.
Hello again,
Rick Santorum says that contraception isn't good for the country, but if he's president, he won't do anything about it.
Do you believe him?
excon
What could he possibly do about it ? He wouldn't be Obama with infinite powers of executive orders bypassing the will of the Legislative branch.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah, that's what I thought about your right wing Governor of Florida.. But, WITH a majority in the Senate and the House (which are definite possibilities), I think he could swing it.
More importantly, I think he'd TRY.
excon
I don't believe he would. As a conservative I'm pretty sure he'd take a States power position . I've heard him make that case many times. I've yet to hear him make a case that it is a federal issue.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I do NOT believe that he's a small government conservative. He's certainly for a FEDERAL law against gay marriage. He'd tell the states that passed it to go suck... What makes you think he'd be different about birth control?
excon
LOL, we already know these conservatives only want rules for poor people, but not rich people. That's why they want a small government, but one big enough to tell you what to do in your own home, and with who, and how. But lets corporations do as they please.
Newt was correct with the term right wing social engineering. But corporate sodomy is just fine.
Funny tal since Margaret Sanger the founder of planned Parenthood was an advocate of aborting the poor and black. I'd say it's progressives who in the name of helping the poor keep them in sevitude .
Ex ;the reason that there will ultimately be a national law about marriage is because of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution which requires states to honor the contracts made in other states.
Yes. What I don't believe is why ABC was so preoccupied with contraception when the economy is in the tank, Iran is enriching uranium at an underground facility and posturing in the gulf, we're paying 9 times the price of jet fuel to buy biofuel, gas prices are about to spike, the administration is squirming its way around gun running, making illegal recess appointments and wasting taxpayer billions of social engineering of its own. Who gives a damn about contraception?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Rick Santorum, that's who. HE brought it up FIRST. Doncha think it's a viable line of questioning?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 AM. |