What sort of perspective on law should the next SC appointee have? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 12:57 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: What sort of perspective on law should the next SC appointee have?

Quote:
koop - 6/26/2005 2:37 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 6/26/2005 2:18 PM

1. How many amendments to the constitution do you want? ...

2. The whole attack on the judiciary is a smoke screen and a straw man....

3. If you really want to be concerned about unelected officials making up rules look to the thousands and thousands of rules made by administrative agencies...

4. The unelected officials making up rules in the middle of the game aren't judges it's bureocrats.


1. As many as necessary and no more.

2. Not to me.

3. I am concerned about it and want less, not more government in response to that BS. I also want laws to be interpreted as they apply to the Constitution as it is written. Where conflicts arise between amendments, which they often do, I would prefer that Jusitice err on the side of individual liberty, not on the side of government, at whatever level.

4. It is both. Judges are easier to deal with than the entire freaking federal bureaucracy. I think both need to be reigned in. If I must fight a battle, I take out the easier adversary first. That's the Judiciary.
1. That's not an answer, we freed the slaves with a const amendment, should we also have had a const amendment that said poll taxes are illegal and literacy test to vote are illegal? What you are advocating is no judicial oversight.

2. Because once again you bought the party line.

3. So who gets to decide what is a valid exercise of congresses police powers? Congress? It's nice to say "I want decisions made to adhere to the constitution" but the const isn't a very detailed doc. That statement doesn't mean much. Who gets to decide what it means.

4. Again, judges don't make rules.

As with all "reformers" I'd really like to hear some concrete examples the reforms you are looking for. How bout some cases in which the SC made up rules out of whole cloth?[/QUOTE]
1. The question, "How many amendments should we have" is a useless question to which I responded with a frivolous answer. Perhaps you could phrase it so that we could address it reasonably?

2. Yours is just a different party line. Doesn't make it any more or less the correct one than my own, it is just a different view of the role of the judiciary. It is to be expected, not trivialized.

3. That is the very reason we have a divided government, so that nobody gets the final answer on anything. It is alsways subject to enactment, enfocrement, interpretation and amendment. I would prefer less interpretation and more enactment as I believe that the legislature responds to the people while the Judiciary follows its own lights. But it is a tension.

Sometimes in history I would go the other way, like in the United States vs the Cherokee nation, in which the Supremes ruled in favor of the Cherokee and jackson said, "John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it." The result of which was that Jackson forced the Cherokee out of their ancestral land, basicly because somebody found gold in their mountains. Jackson demonstrated that the Supremes have no power to act, whatever their ruling. Not a highpoint in our history, but some people still insist that jackson was a great guy. Probably not a Cherokee opinion.

4. Judges are not supposed to make rules. But sometimes they discover things that nobody had seen before.

Like transferring property by immenent domain from a private individual to a corporation, for example. I would say they erred against personal liberty, which violates my assumption that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of a corporation, since I see no rights given to corporations in the constitution. Somehow they found one.

I'm agin it.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 03:56 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: What sort of perspective on law should the next SC appointee have?

OK, good example. I agree with you about the outcome but not how they got there. It wasn't about the rights of a corporation but rather the definition of "public use."

Now that's not defined in the constitution or by statute. According to the legislature, the will of the people as you put it, public use means that New London can take those peoples homes because the public will benefit by increased jobs and increased tax base.

The decision basically allows the legislative branch to decide what is public use. The court said that if the legislative branch can show a rational purpose for the taking it's OK. This is a decision you should approve of because the court didn't make new law. It defered to the local government in making these decisions.

That's where we differ. I don't trust the legislature. I think politicians are corrupt and people are stupid. We must be saved from them and ourselves. An idea coincidently shared by many of the founders.

As an aside I think this whole government movement is very short sighted and will have the opposite of it's intended effect.

I've been toying with the idea of buying some commercial space for my office. Nothing fancy, just a small storefront or building. I was looking in the next town over but have ruled it out because they tried to move on a guy's auto repair buisness to put in a Walgreens. Now this guy has a nice shop, it's not some old converted gas station, it's pretty modern, nicely landscaped and has been in the family three generations.

Since this ruling and the city's obvious inclination to grab property I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting to invest there. I think it has an incredible destabilizing effect on local economies.


Forum killa


You have been banned for the following reason:
insulting mod

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
koop is offline  
post #23 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 04:50 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: What sort of perspective on law should the next SC appointee have?

From the perspective of defering to the local legislative body, I agree with the opinion. But from taking property from an individual and giving it to a corporation, I do not agree. This is where I think two conflicting interests of the constitution play against each other: states' rights vs individual rights.

If the local gov had taken the property for public use, I'd have grumbled but not been very near anger about it. But to confiscate property from a citizen to give (or sell or whatever) to a corporation is just the wrong view, IMO.

Concerning fickle and stupid public, I completely agree that something needs to hold it in check and that's why we have a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. The founders gave power of Constitutional interpretation to a aristocracy but wisely gave them no power. thus, the branches are intentionally set against each other as adversaries and all except the Supremes, answerable to the people.

It is not always an ideal solution, but it seems to work most of the time. I defer to Churchill's observation on this, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome