All This Angst

[Scott D]

Reminds me of the claims of this country being pulled into the throes of Fascism four years ago. Some people really need to get a grip with their doomsaying.

[leavingthezoo]

dude, you better get a helmet real fast. TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

:D

[Scott D]

hah, I need hip waders to deal with the mouth breathing coming out now.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I believe the following to be a matter of fact, not doomsday stuff. History is on the side of this conclusion.


This will end up to be a huge shift, all those judges Bush appointed and the Dems stymied will be replaced with social engineering specialists to legislate from the bench!

This is only one aspect of the change about to take place. America wanted change and now it will get it.

[GrapevineSooner]

Dude, he lives in Detroit.

Canada's right across the river. :D

[TUSooner]

Reminds me of the claims of this country being pulled into the throes of Fascism four years ago. Some people really need to get a grip with their doomsaying.

so true

[Howzit]

No more worries about putting gas in my car.

No more concerns about having to pay my mortgage.

I'm good.

[Scott D]

I believe the following to be a matter of fact, not doomsday stuff. History is on the side of this conclusion.

yeah, and roll back 4 years ago and you'll find someone saying the exact reverse of that in regards to what electing Bush for a second term was going to lead to.

[Cam]

Will there be a run on tin foil in stores today?

[IB4OU2]

When does all the redistribution of wealth start? Now or January 21st?

[1890MilesToNorman]

If you want the courts making law instead of the legislature then you should be comforted with yesterdays results. I'm not.

[TUSooner]

If you want the courts making law instead of the legislature then you should be comforted with yesterdays COURTS. I'm not.
Fixed.
Like it or not, courts have been making law since ever there were courts.

[Scott D]

If you want the courts making law instead of the legislature then you should be comforted with yesterdays results. I'm not.

are you new to politics?

the largest travesty in our government is that judicial appointments are political AT ALL. I no more support the candidates that Obama may introduce as appointees as I did ones that Bush did or Clinton did. Then again, I also am not a fan of people having an inside leg up on potential employment by knowing the "right people" instead of on the merit of what they can bring to the job.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Fixed.
Like it or not, courts have been making law since ever there were courts.


Courts are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. This trend is a relatively new one, say the past 30 years. Legislative decisions still remain the responsibility of the the Congress and State Legislatures. Sorry if I'm old fashioned but the fact remains. No one has changed the Constitution to give the courts any right to make law, until they do this is one of the most important issues for me.

Ok, I'm done. Congrats to the Dems, rant is over and I'll see you guys in the football forum. :D

[Widescreen]

When does all the redistribution of wealth start? Now or January 21st?

And tangentially, at what income bracket does it start? $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? $120,000?

Obama's surrogates have been lowering the ceiling on that thing every couple of days.

[Howzit]

And tangentially, at what income bracket does it start? $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? $120,000?

Obama's surrogates have been lowering the ceiling on that thing every couple of days.

:les: CAN'T YOU JUST BE HAPPY WITH THE HISTORICALNESS?!?!?

[IB4OU2]

:les: CAN'T YOU JUST BE HAPPY WITH THE HISTORICALNESS?!?!?

:les: It's almost like when we landed on the moon!

[OU4LIFE]

I want my free wealth. Cough it up, bastards.

don't try and slink out of it now...

[Widescreen]

I want my free wealth. Cough it up, bastards.

don't try and slink out of it now...

You don't seem to understand how this works. :D

[1890MilesToNorman]

I want my free wealth. Cough it up, bastards.

don't try and slink out of it now...

Before you get there with your hand out I would read the very small print!!! :O

[IB4OU2]

I want my free wealth. Cough it up, bastards.

don't try and slink out of it now...
Iv'e got an almost new Titliest ProV1 I found the other day...you can have it.

[TUSooner]

Courts are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. This trend is a relatively new one, say the past 30 years. Legislative decisions still remain the responsibility of the the Congress and State Legislatures. Sorry if I'm old fashioned but the fact remains. No one has changed the Constitution to give the courts any right to make law, until they do this is one of the most important issues for me.

Ok, I'm done. Congrats to the Dems, rant is over and I'll see you guys in the football forum. :D


Have you ever heard of Marbury v. Madison (US 1803)?

[1890MilesToNorman]

Have you ever heard of Marbury v. Madison (US 1803)?

I had not but I looked it up, this was a ruling interpreting the constitution validity of a case, they did not create law. They did set a precedence.

"Holding: (1) Yes. The Constitution is the law of the land, and all other laws are subservient to it.

(2) Yes. Marbury had vested a legal right in the commission for the term as justice, a right which was not revocable.

(3) Yes, Mandamus was the appropriate legal remedy, for there was no other under the law for Marbury at the time of the suit, other than to go the Federal route in seeing his appointment and subsequent confirmation followed through."

[1890MilesToNorman]

Here is more on the ruling.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: The court may enforce with mandamus because the court has been granted the power under the constitution to use its power when the right claimed is one given by a law of the United States. Otherwise, the Court has mere appellate jurisdiction. However the Constitution does not grant such a power.

So the court must decide here, the means in which to govern: where the constitution may take a back seat to other law, or where the constitution holds overall precedent. Either way, the law or the constitution, must apply totally to the case at hand. In short, it would be betrayal to the very meaning of what the framers of the constitution intended. The constitution must be observed first and foremost; everything else is subservient to it. Both the legislature and executive branches support this ideal.

Rule: The Secretary of State is a person whose actions fall under the scope of the Judicial Act of 1789. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the Court to use to enforce its authority on any courts appointed, persons holding office in the United States.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Marbury v. Madison

Admits the courts are constrained by the Constitution and Current law with the Constitution having the last last say in all matters. At least that's how I read it.

Now back to my mundane existence of living day to day.

[Frozen Sooner]

I had not

If you've never heard of Marbury v. Madison, you should probably stay out of all future discussions regarding the courts.

[OU4LIFE]

He's Robin Hood, I'm poor, what's there to understand.

gimme.

[OU4LIFE]

Iv'e got an almost new Titliest ProV1 I found the other day...you can have it.

i'll take it. it's a start.

[1890MilesToNorman]

If you've never heard of Marbury v. Madison, you should probably stay out of all future discussions regarding the courts.

Mike, am reading this ruling wrong? and if so how?


Thanks,

[Frozen Sooner]

Mike, am reading this ruling wrong? and if so how?


Thanks,

Marbury v. Madison is the case that established the concept of judicial review, or what people like to call "legislating from the bench."

Under Marbury, the Court has the power to state that a particular law is unconstitutional and de facto strike it from the books.

The Court did not then and does not now take an affirmative role in making law. It provides a negating effect on existing law through interpretation of the Constitution.

Again, if you have not heard of Marbury v. Madison before today, I highly recommend you go pick up a book on the history of the Supreme Court. It's one of the five most important-probably THE most important-opinions in determining how the Court functions today.

edit: to clarify, it established the power of judicial review for the US Supreme Court. Other nations had a similar concept.

[1890MilesToNorman]

"Under Marbury, the Court has the power to state that a particular law is unconstitutional and de facto strike it from the books."

That's what i have been saying in my layman's terms. In recent years there have been many activist judges creating law from the the bench and it is wrong. The most blatant was in Mass 5 or 6 years ago basically stating we overturn the public vote and legislature because they don't know what they are doing. This has happened in many states and Cal is probably at the top of the list. Not Supreme court decisions but Circuit court decisions. How many public referendums have been overturned in the past 15 years? way to many for my tastes.

[Frozen Sooner]

"Under Marbury, the Court has the power to state that a particular law is unconstitutional and de facto strike it from the books."

That's what i have been saying in my layman's terms. In recent years there have been many activist judges creating law from the the bench and it is wrong. The most blatant was in Mass 5 or 6 years ago basically stating we overturn the public vote and legislature because they don't know what they are doing. This has happened in many states and Cal is probably at the top of the list. Not Supreme court decisions but Circuit court decisions. How many public referendums have been overturned in the past 15 years? way to many for my tastes.

Again, they did not create law by overturning public referendums and decisions of the legislature.

Marbury v. Madison established that overturning unconstitutional laws (or enjoining unconstitutional actions) was a proper role of the courts.

[Echoes]

Actually, I have been pretty impressed by the Repub's on here not totally going into meltdown. Most seem to be ready and willing to give Obama a fair chance to do this country some good, and that's all you can really ask for.

[1890MilesToNorman]

In the Massachusetts case they did create law, they made gay marriage legal if not acted on by the legislature in a specific amount of time, in essence creating law. This is not the courts responsibility. They should have said gay marriage is OK as long as the legislature approves it.

[Frozen Sooner]

In the Massachusetts case they did create law, they made gay marriage legal if not acted on by the legislature in a specific amount of time, in essence creating law. This is not the courts responsibility. They should have said gay marriage is OK as long as the legislature approves it.

Wrong.

You're missing the point here: the courts have the power to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional policies and laws. They found the policies and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be unconstitutional and gave the state time to bring their laws into constitutional compliance.

[1890MilesToNorman]

So if a state wants a marriage to be between one man and one woman the constitution forbids it? I must have missed that clause somewhere. I lived in Mass during this controversy and it was a cluster. I would love to know what part of the Constitution allows such a decision, overriding the states rights on what basis?

[Frozen Sooner]

The Massachusetts Constitution forbids it, at least as interpreted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.


This court concluded that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violated the Massachusetts Constitution in that such a marriage ban did not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection, where the Commonwealth failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. [327-342] GREANEY, J., concurring; SPINA, J., SOSMAN, J., CORDY, J., dissenting.

Marbury allows the overriding of "state's rights" on that basis.

[Condescending Sooner]

Actually, I have been pretty impressed by the Repub's on here not totally going into meltdown. Most seem to be ready and willing to give Obama a fair chance to do this country some good, and that's all you can really ask for.

Unlike the last election.

[1890MilesToNorman]

The Massachusetts Constitution forbids it, at least as interpreted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.



Marbury allows the overriding of "state's rights" on that basis.

Ok Mike I surrender, I don't like it but i surrender. I don't agree with the ruling because it was put before the voters and soundly defeated, I didn't know that marriage could be entered into between a squash and a watermelon either but I guess I'm wrong again. :D

You lawyer types just **** me off. :P

Have a good day my friend.

[Frozen Sooner]

I ain't a lawyer. Yet. :D

And no, a squash and a watermelon do not enjoy constitutional protections.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I ain't a lawyer. Yet. :D

And no, a squash and a watermelon do not enjoy constitutional protections.


Another lesson learned today! :D

Good luck on that "YET" aspect, soon i hope. I have had need for a good lawyer in the past and they have served me well. ;)

[TUSooner]

***And no, a squash and a watermelon do not enjoy constitutional protections.

But they will probably enjoy them before fetuses do. :O

[Frozen Sooner]

But they will probably enjoy them before fetuses do. :O

To be fair, fetuses are nowhere near as tasty as watermelons.

[47straight]

The Massachusetts Constitution forbids it, at least as interpreted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.



Marbury allows the overriding of "state's rights" on that basis.


If you haven't read the incoporation cases, then you should stay out of all future discussions on this topic.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK. Pray tell how the fact that much of the Bill of Rights applies to the states invalidates anything I wrote?

[SoonerInKCMO]

To be fair, fetuses are nowhere near as tasty as watermelons.

You're not cookin' 'em right.

[Widescreen]

And no, a squash and a watermelon do not enjoy constitutional protections.

Yet. Give it time. Obama's gonna change the world. ;)

[Jerk]

Angst????

You don't hear me saying sh*t.

No whining about how the election was stolen.

No crying how I'm going to move to France or Canada.

And every bad thing that happens between now and 2012 won't necessarily be Obama's fault...even if a hurricane hits a city full of Republicans.

Deep inside my hardened soul, there is a little bit of happiness, because if things to to complete sh*t, there won't be any Republicans around to blame.

[KC//CRIMSON]

No more worries about putting gas in my car.

No more concerns about having to pay my mortgage.

I'm good.


He's gonna run your triathlons for you too. You're better than good, you're gold!