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 judicial branch interprets the intent of the law, since Congress has sworn to uphold the Constitution it might be implicit that any law was not intended to violate the Constitution.
And also the executive branch and I believe that is usually the case except when, which is most of the time for liberal judges, judges throw originalism to the wind and create completely novel interpretations and understandings from convenient parts of the constitution that no one not even the Court itself had before.
We will see. If we see case after case as a 5-4 split, between justices appointed by Republicans and Justices appointed by Democrats, then we will know that SCOTUS has become an extension of partisan politics, and no longer a branch of government that makes independent judgement based on Constitutional and legal grounds. Personally, I think this is already happening, and has been going in that direction since the "appointment" of Bush in Bush v. Gore. It may depend on the leadership of the Chief Justice, and whether he is motivated to and able to steer the court away from being a political arm of the government.
We will see. If we see case after case as a 5-4 split, between justices appointed by Republicans and Justices appointed by Democrats, then we will know that SCOTUS has become an extension of partisan politics, and no longer a branch of government that makes independent judgement based on Constitutional and legal grounds. Personally, I think this is already happening, and has been going in that direction since the "appointment" of Bush in Bush v. Gore. It may depend on the leadership of the Chief Justice, and whether he is motivated to and able to steer the court away from being a political arm of the government.
Yes it has been going on. Have you read any dissenting opinions from Sotomayor or Kagan? They reek of unconstitutional partisan grand standing.
What the gov. gives it can take. That is the history.
FDR did that in 1933. To equate the VA with Social Security or Medicare is a total disconnect of reason.
Don't attempt to separate one federal program from another. There are forces out there that want to get rid of all federal programs. The VA is a federal program just like the rest. To the very wealthy they can be dropped on their heads as readily as the rest.
We will see. If we see case after case as a 5-4 split, between justices appointed by Republicans and Justices appointed by Democrats, then we will know that SCOTUS has become an extension of partisan politics, and no longer a branch of government that makes independent judgement based on Constitutional and legal grounds. Personally, I think this is already happening, and has been going in that direction since the "appointment" of Bush in Bush v. Gore. It may depend on the leadership of the Chief Justice, and whether he is motivated to and able to steer the court away from being a political arm of the government.
You have no concept of history. It has been going on since the founding of the United States. Do you think every Supreme Court before the 2000 election wasn't politically-motivated, and in many cases wrong?
The fact that anyone has ever believed that the Supreme Court rules on the actual Constitution is proof of how stupid and gullible Americans are.
5-4 decisions were the norm in the 1930's as well, and many other times before that.
The only reason the court wasn't making as many 5-4 decisions in the immediate post-war years, was because FDR was elected four times and Truman elected once, so a Democrat was in the presidency for 20 straight years. And they replaced pretty much the entire court with lefties(who paved the way for the changes of the 50's, 60's, and 70's)
The court only began to shift to the right once you had 8 years of Nixon + Ford, followed by 4 years of Carter, then 12 more years of Reagan/Bush Sr.
The fact that Americans simply accept the Supreme Court decisions like they are written by god himself, shows their ignorance. And the fact that even when they reject the courts, their only response is to win elections so they can themselves stack the court, is proof of just how powerful, and ultimately illegitimate the court is.
And yet, the political-left said NOTHING when decisions such as same-sex marriage and the affordable-care act went 5-4 in their favor. Not only did they not criticize those decisions, they celebrated them. So when I hear these HYPOCRITES whining because what-goes-around-comes-around, I have zero sympathies.
You're all partisan hacks who only want to get your way. And when you don't get your way, you whine. You aren't opposed the the politicization of the courts as a matter of principle. You are only opposed to not getting what you want.
A nation of selfish hypocrites. This is exactly what you people deserve. I hope it all blows up in your faces.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-10-2018 at 12:47 PM..
"The Supreme Court Is No Longer An Independent Branch of Government"
I somewhat agree for a different reason. Trump nominated a person, Kavanaugh, who believes the Executive branch should be a protected island completely immune to all legal actions. Trump has an active FBI investigation that mightlead to Trump being subpoenaed. That's a direct conflict of interest.
The right thing for Kavanaugh to do if the Trump-Russia scandal comes before the Supreme Court is for him to recuse himself. We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
My salaried job without the possibility of overtime is guess what.....UNION....
Talk about being stuck in the 50's. This Leftist mindset about unions is all about how it was in the 50's and nothing like it is now.
The current hourly wage rate where I worked is 84,707. Above that is salaried.
Yes there is. Reread the 4th Amendment. It includes "persons" as well as possessions, and "seizures" as well as searches. It does not specify type of warrant, only the term "warrants".
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In effect you are right, but my point was to MTL1 that the word ARREST does not appear in the 4th, since he or she seems to be not interpreting any provision, just "as is'.
A Terry stop is not an arrest, just a temporary seizure, see what I mean about interpretation!
Maybe it will show you just how dangerous that they are.
Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. They get to the Pearly gates and meet St. Peter. He tells them that prior to their entry into Paradise, he can grant them each one wish, anything at all, as he is all knowing, all seeing, etc.
Excited, the two look at each other, chattering about how this is it, their big chance. They whisper to each other real fast, and while barely able to control their excitement, they ask in unison "who killed JFK?" St. Peter says, quite calmly, "Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, using a bolt action rifle."
They stare at him for a second, then turn to each other and say "this thing is bigger than we thought."
---
My point is that you conspiracy folks are a tough lot to convince of anything that disagrees with the voices in your head.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 10-10-2018 at 03:24 PM..
You have no concept of history. It has been going on since the founding of the United States. Do you think every Supreme Court before the 2000 election wasn't politically-motivated, and in many cases wrong?
The fact that anyone has ever believed that the Supreme Court rules on the actual Constitution is proof of how stupid and gullible Americans are.
5-4 decisions were the norm in the 1930's as well, and many other times before that.
The only reason the court wasn't making as many 5-4 decisions in the immediate post-war years, was because FDR was elected four times and Truman elected once, so a Democrat was in the presidency for 20 straight years. And they replaced pretty much the entire court with lefties(who paved the way for the changes of the 50's, 60's, and 70's)
The court only began to shift to the right once you had 8 years of Nixon + Ford, followed by 4 years of Carter, then 12 more years of Reagan/Bush Sr.
The fact that Americans simply accept the Supreme Court decisions like they are written by god himself, shows their ignorance. And the fact that even when they reject the courts, their only response is to win elections so they can themselves stack the court, is proof of just how powerful, and ultimately illegitimate the court is.
And yet, the political-left said NOTHING when decisions such as same-sex marriage and the affordable-care act went 5-4 in their favor. Not only did they not criticize those decisions, they celebrated them. So when I hear these HYPOCRITES whining because what-goes-around-comes-around, I have zero sympathies.
You're all partisan hacks who only want to get your way. And when you don't get your way, you whine. You aren't opposed the the politicization of the courts as a matter of principle. You are only opposed to not getting what you want.
A nation of selfish hypocrites. This is exactly what you people deserve. I hope it all blows up in your faces.
I like this post . Democrats want the courts to be as powerful and least partisan and least originalist as possible but only in their favor. That's the definition of a liberal judge.
Yes there is. Reread the 4th Amendment. It includes "persons" as well as possessions, and "seizures" as well as searches. It does not specify type of warrant, only the term "warrants".
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2
In effect you are right, but my point was to MTL1 that the word ARREST does not appear in the 4th, since he or she seems to be not interpreting any provision, just "as is'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2
For example, there is nothing in the Constitution about arrest warrants, just search warrants. So if you were arrested for no reason, arguendo, what has the government done wrong?
Wow, the ignorance here is truly astonishing.
The definition of "seize" is taking forceable possession of anything, and that includes persons.
To "arrest" simply means to stop. Some people have arrested mental or emotional development. This is often true of those persons who undergo one or more traumas. 18, 19 and 20 year old kids who experienced trauma in combat are emotionally arrested at that point. Even at age 40, 50 or 60, those combat veterans are emotionally arrested at that age, and have not emotionally developed further.
Warrants are writs which grant authority.
There are many types of writs, for example, a Writ of Manumission. Those writs were issued in Britain hundreds of years before Muslims introduced Europe to the African slave trade. They were "free papers" granting you freedom, so that you were no longer a slave.
You can have a court issue a Writ of Mandamus. It compels an agent of the government to take the action(s) specified in the writ. Suppose a chemical company in Pittsburgh released carbon tetrachloride into the Allegheny River (that actually happened once). Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) is an organic chemical compound deadly to humans, but it's most common use is dry cleaning solvent at your dry cleaners where you take your clothes. You could file suit in federal court and obtain a Writ of Mandamus compelling the City of Cincinnati to test the water in the Ohio River (the Allegheny is a tributary to the Ohio) and close the intake valves on the water plants the city owns and operates, if city leaders failed or refused to take any actions to protect the population from the dangers of CCl4.
In extreme instances, some people have obtained a Writ of Mandamus to compel police to investigate a missing person, after police took the report and did nothing for months or years.
You could request a court to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling your State Attorney General to sue the manufacturers of opioids, if you wanted to do that.
Warrants are just another form of writs.
With probable cause, a warrant may be issued to search property, vehicles, boats, aircraft or people.
Warrants can also be issued to seize property, vehicles, boats or aircraft, or to seize blood, saliva or hair samples, and in some cases, compel someone to undergo surgery to seize a bullet from their body for ballistics analysis.
Warrants can also be issued to seize people. You colloquially call that an "arrest warrant" but it is in fact a seizure warrant.
The fact that you can't understand the difference between colloquial verbiage and legal verbiage does not alter the reality that the 4th Amendment permits the seizure of a person.
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.
. Democrats want the courts to be as powerful and least partisan and least originalist as possible but only in their favor. That's the definition of a liberal judge.
