Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the Eminent domain law in Kelo vs New London Seems just wrong to me.
It is wrong!!
I also disagree wid dat der Bush vs Gore rulin' but dat done count, I guess. Cuz dat one der was a Florida Supreme Court ruling der it was, doncha know.
Since the Republicans decry the activist court, it is a reasonable question to ask what court decisions are considered aggregious as a way of judging how a potential president might pick new judges. How activist and aggregious can they be, if one cannot even remember what one is angered over?
The mere suggestion of this is an outrage! How dare you!
We shouldn't be afraid of trade, trade is your friend, but if trade ever touches you in an inappropriate way, you should tell your mother and father immediately.
Some more key words that come to mind: Freedomness, Putin's eyes, trade deficery, gotcha politics, ebay, maverick and ready to serve.
Unless of course fungible molecular's didn't blink commodities over Russian's - where do they go?
I also disagree wid dat der Bush vs Gore rulin' but dat done count, I guess. Cuz dat one der was a Florida Supreme Court ruling der it was, doncha know.
And the US supreme court. Both courts ruled on the election.
There was also the Supreme Court ruling in which the Governor expressed dissent publicly over the ruling...I wonder why she didn't just throw that one out, it was easy.
June 25, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today responded to the announcement that the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the Exxon Valdez case. The Court awarded no more than $507.5 million in punitive damages to the plaintiffs, or about 10 percent of the jury’s original award.
“I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Governor Palin said. “While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the Court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages.”
Just more of the same trying to out lawyer the Founding Fathers....
That's a rather off-tone comment given that I'm the one who actually applies the same method of Constitutional Interpretation the lawmakers believed should be applied to the U. S. Constitution of 1788.
Even the lawmakers who opposed the Constitution believed the well established common law rules of construction applied to the national charter. Here's Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who opposed the Constitution, indicating in Anti-Federalist No. 11, dated January of 1788, that the well established common law rules of construction, as laid down by the learned Blackstone, should be applied to the Constitution.
This article vests the courts with authority to give the constitution a legal construction, or to explain it according to the rules laid down for construing a law. — These rules give a certain degree of latitude of explanation. According to this mode of construction, the courts are to give such meaning to the constitution as comports best with the common, and generally received acceptation of the words in which it is expressed, regarding their ordinary and popular use, rather than their grammatical propriety. Where words are dubious, they will be explained by the context. The end of the clause will be attended to, and the words will be understood, as having a view to it; and the words will not be so understood as to bear no meaning or a very absurd one.
2d. The judicial are not only to decide questions arising upon the meaning of the constitution in law, but also in equity.
By this they are empowered, to explain the constitution according to the reasoning spirit of it, without being confined to the words or letter.
"From this method of interpreting laws (says Blackstone) by the reason of them, arises what we call equity;" which is thus defined by Grotius, "the correction of that, wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient["]; for since in laws all cases cannot be foreseen, or expressed, it is necessary, that when the decrees of the law cannot be applied to particular cases, there should some where be a power vested of defining those circumstances, which had they been foreseen the legislator would have expressed; and these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ["]lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittet."
So, what other SC decisions do y'all disagree with? Personally, I can't think of any. Those that featured a segregated and unjust society have been corrected, so they're moot.
Does it matter if we can answer this question? I'm not running for vice president of the United States. In my opinion, a vice presidential candidate should be well-versed in important decisions of the Supreme Court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
