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.
If a man rapes someone in front of a cop, and the cop fails to act, that doesn't make rape legal, that's dereliction of duty. Same holds true with the SCOTUS.
See Random, i knew someone would argue the SCOTUS acts in unconstitutional ways
See Random, i knew someone would argue the SCOTUS acts in unconstitutional ways
I believe he is referring to one of the points I made earlier. Which is essentially that if you do not have the resources or the time to stop the government from acting unconstitutionally you are SOL and also while you are waiting for the court to act unless you get an injunction the government could doing something that is unconstitutional right up to the resolution of the appeal.
Take Bush v. Boumediene. The government through the MCA was violating his habeas rights. During the whole deal the government was enforcing a provision that the SCOTUS eventually held was unconstitutional. So much for your theory that the government always acts in constitutional ways.
I believe he is referring to one of the points I made earlier. Which is essentially that if you do not have the resources or the time to stop the government from acting unconstitutionally you are SOL and also while you are waiting for the court to act unless you get an injunction the government could doing something that is unconstitutional right up to the resolution of the appeal.
Take Bush v. Boumediene. The government through the MCA was violating his habeas rights. During the whole deal the government was enforcing a provision that the SCOTUS eventually held was unconstitutional. All that time the government was doing something the SCOTUS held violated the constitution.
What compellng constitutional issue isn't making it's way to the court due to lack of resources? Even indigent folks have cases heard before the court.
What compellng constitutional issue isn't making it's way to the court due to lack of resources? Even indigent folks have cases heard before the court.
There are scores of them. There are so many issues the high court cannot possibly hear them all so they pick the choicest ones. With that said. Getting back to your issue on the government always acting in Constitutional ways, let me remind you of the doctrine of standing. In order to bring a case you have to have standing and that usually requires an injury or an imminent injury. As such generally in constitutional cases against the government the court hears it is already alleged that the government has acted in an unconstitutional manner.
There are scores of them. There are so many issues the high court cannot possibly hear them all so they pick the choicest ones. With that said. Getting back to your issue on the government always acting in Constitutional ways, let me remind you of the doctrine of standing. In order to bring a case you have to have standing and that usually requires an injury or an imminent injury. As such generally in constitutional cases against the government the court hears it is already alleged that the government has acted in an unconstitutional manner.
Of course that's not true. The court doesn't turn away cases because of time constraints.
Of course the court hears constitutionally questionable cases. It turns away cases of settled law. Or cases without compelling constitutional issues.
Oh sure, that's easy. In order to understand the reason you first need to understand Afghanistan. During the time in question Afghanistan had a nonfunctional government. Because of that, a group of Islamic terrorists took over the country, called the Taliban. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to operate freely in their country. Now al Qaeda was headed by a person named Osama Bin Laden, who planned , financed , and authorized the attack on the US. Following the attack, we offered the Taliban the option of handing Bin Laden over, they refused. So in order to ensure we were safe we decided to clean out the country that harbored those who attacked us.
So the fact that Bin Ladin was of Saudi nationality was irrelevant since the Saudis in no way helped him. Hope this helps.
You ignore the fact that the TERRORISTS...the ones who actually blew up the towers, were SAUDI NATIONALS. There is more than enough proof that the Saudis financed and supported them...and yet....we go after Afghanistan? Oh, and where did we find Bin Laden? Not in Afghanistan...Pakistan! This war is a corporate war, being fought to secure our oil reserves in the ME, and Mr. Obama's hands are as dirty as can be, as were Mr. Bush's. Ron Paul has been saying it all along....
Of course that's not true. The court doesn't turn away cases because of time constraints.
Of course the court hears constitutionally questionable cases. It turns away cases of settled law. Or cases without compelling constitutional issues.
Um no the supreme court gets 7,000 cases each year many of which present novel and compelling issues and 1/3 of which have gone all the way to state supreme courts, which apparently thought they had compelling issues and were not settled law. Out of those 7,000 they hear about 80. The court simply doesn't have the time to adjudicate 7,000 cases a year.
See Random, i knew someone would argue the SCOTUS acts in unconstitutional ways
They have historically. Do you deny that?
Even a former Supreme Court Justice admitted that the SCOTUS sold out the US Constitution to preserve the court under FDR's threats to stack the Supreme Court. Seriously, please educate yourself!
You ignore the fact that the TERRORISTS...the ones who actually blew up the towers, were SAUDI NATIONALS. There is more than enough proof that the Saudis financed and supported them...and yet....we go after Afghanistan? Oh, and where did we find Bin Laden? Not in Afghanistan...Pakistan! This war is a corporate war, being fought to secure our oil reserves in the ME, and Mr. Obama's hands are as dirty as can be, as were Mr. Bush's. Ron Paul has been saying it all along....
Huh? How is their nationality proof that their country of origin had anything to do with it? The last terrorist we killed was a U S citizen. What conclusion do you draw from that?
Ya know why Bin Laden was in Pakistan? Because we were in Afghanistan!
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.
