Kansas Olligarch Governor ends independent Judiciary

[ChristianProgressive]

This is getting so very little national news coverage. Is no one taking the guy seriously?

Since that national "news" media are all corporate owned and corporations support TEAOP, you do the math...

 

[BobTheCoward]

By your notion, the very concept of "miscarriage of justice" cannot exist, but we know that many unjust court rulings have been made at all levels of the law.

On the federal level, supreme court justices are not judges. There is no requirement to even have a law background. They are also not accountable to any judicial concepts such as bias that restricts federal judges. In a very real sense, they are a political position. It makes them committing a miscarriage of justice darn hard.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In what way. How does a ruling legitimize itself? If a crooked judge rules in a biased manner, his rulings are de facto rendered illegitimate due to that bias (judges are supposed to be impartial and rule in accordance with law and justice).

Another example of invalid rulings your doctrine would legitimize: the so-called "kids for cash" juvenile justice scandal in PA in 2008. Juveniles were given extremely harsh (and often unwarranted entirely) sentences in a for-profit juvenile jail that paid two judges to do exactly that.

We're discussing the Supreme Court. Focus, Daniel-san.

Documentary:

http://kidsforcashthemovie.com/

I don't have time to watch movies. Can you post a transcript?

History of scandal, including source links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Not interested.

Because validity is not a function of existence. Validity is that is correct and proper in this context.

By your notion, the very concept of "miscarriage of justice" cannot exist, but we know that many unjust court rulings have been made at all levels of the law.

What on earth are you blathering about?

 

[Border Reiver]

It scares me more than I can adequately express that you would hold that Dred Scott was EVERa valid SCOTUS decision.

I think you are confusing whether a court decision is right from a moral or ethical position, with whether it is correct in law. Dred Scott WAS an ethically and morally bankrupt decision. It was also legally correct at the time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think you are confusing whether a court decision is right from a moral or ethical position, with whether it is correct in law. Dred Scott WAS an ethically and morally bankrupt decision. It was also legally correct at the time.

It amazes me that people struggle with this concept.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

On the federal level, supreme court justices are not judges. There is no requirement to even have a law background. They are also not accountable to any judicial concepts such as bias that restricts federal judges. In a very real sense, they are a political position. It makes them committing a miscarriage of justice darn hard.

On the contrary, they commit them all the time. I've mentioned several of the most egregious already.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

We're discussing the Supreme Court. Focus, Daniel-san.

No, we're discussing invalid court rulings in general, with this little side trip to SCOTUS being used as an example.

I don't have time to watch movies. Can you post a transcript?

I'm not sure where one could be found, but you don't want to bother anyways, as you indicate below.

Not interested.

The link you are "not interested in" is the outline of the issue presented in the documentary.

What on earth are you blathering about?

I'm calling BS on your claim that a court decision is valid because a court made that decision. You are employing circular argument.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

It amazes me that people struggle with this concept.

So if Congress passed a law making it legal to rape little girls and SCOTUS upheld it, that would be a valid decision?

(SCOTUS has already ruled that murdering pre-birth human beings is somehow Constitutionally acceptable, so it's not that big of a stretch.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

So if Congress passed a law making it legal to rape little girls and SCOTUS upheld it, that would be a valid decision?

(SCOTUS has already ruled that murdering pre-birth human beings is somehow Constitutionally acceptable, so it's not that big of a stretch.)

Short answer yes.

Long answer: the supreme Court is a political branch, not a court of law. Their rulings do not have to follow any legal doctrine. Their ruling in this situation is as valid as congress's legislation.

 

[Border Reiver]

So if Congress passed a law making it legal to rape little girls and SCOTUS upheld it, that would be a valid decision?

SCOTUS is the final arbiter in the U.S. Of whether or not a law is Constitutional, so if this situation ever arises, then, yes.

You seem to be confusing wether a decision is Constitutional with wether a decision is ethical or moral according to your standards. A decision is not unconstitutional because it is unethical, or is not what you consider to be the desired outcome.

 

[Suddenly]

So if Congress passed a law making it legal to rape little girls and SCOTUS upheld it, that would be a valid decision?

(SCOTUS has already ruled that murdering pre-birth human beings is somehow Constitutionally acceptable, so it's not that big of a stretch.)

You are conflating the legal validity of a law or decision with whether that law/decision is a good idea in a moral sense. They are separate concepts.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So if Congress passed a law making it legal to rape little girls and SCOTUS upheld it, that would be a valid decision?

Yep. Now you're catching on!

(SCOTUS has already ruled that murdering pre-birth human beings is somehow Constitutionally acceptable, so it's not that big of a stretch.)

Citation needed, obviously.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, we're discussing invalid court rulings in general, with this little side trip to SCOTUS being used as an example.

Doesn't really matter. A court ruling is valid unless and until a higher court says it isn't. Obviously the SCOTUS, being the highest court in the land, cannot be over ruled. Ergo, all of its rulings are valid. I learned this in 3rd grade. You must have been out sick that day.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Kansas Supreme Court’s Only Option - Sue Gov. Sam Brownback in federal court.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has long despised his state’s supreme court, whose independence allows it to push back against the Republican governor’s failed Tea Party experiment with slashing taxes and gutting government programs. Now Brownback has discovered a simple way to conquer the court: Threaten it with total destruction. In early June, Brownback signed a bill that will defund the entire state’s judiciary if the supreme court rules against a (probably unconstitutional) law the governor favors. The extortionist measure puts the court in a bind. If it bends to political pressure, it’ll reveal itself to be toothless. If it follows the constitution and upholds the law, it’ll instantly wipe out the state’s third branch of government.
What’s a Kansas supreme court justice to do? Brownback may think he’s devised the perfect trap to tame the court, but he’s forgotten one escape hatch against autocracy—the United States Constitution. An obscure, widely ignored provision of America’s founding charter seems designed to prevent precisely this sort of power grab.

 

[sunmaster14]

The Kansas Supreme Court’s Only Option - Sue Gov. Sam Brownback in federal court.

While an interesting read, that article, by exaggerating and misstating the actual bill, unintentionally makes the case that the issue is a political question and not a judicial one.

So if the Kansas Supreme Court really wants to fight back, it may have only one option remaining: Sue Brownback—in federal court.

Who is this Sue Brownback in federal court that will save the day? Is she related to Sam?

 

[fuelair]

Then he will be Brokeback.

One can but hope!!!

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Short answer yes.

Long answer: the supreme Court is a political branch, not a court of law. Their rulings do not have to follow any legal doctrine. Their ruling in this situation is as valid as congress's legislation.

BS!

Courts are triers of law and fact, NOT political offices. That's why courts are able to be a "check and balance" on the power of the executive and the legislature.

By your twisted logic, Congress could pass a law banning public protests and SCOTUS could rule that law Constitutionally valid despite the clear words of the First Amendment, and that would be a valid ruling because that is what SCOTUS ruled.

That is plainly and obviously absurd. That renders the Constitution a worthless document even in concept, because it can never be enforced.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Yep. Now you're catching on!

I'm catching on that you are insane. A court ruling cannot make valid and legal a clearly INvalid and ILlegal thing (in the case I postulated, raping little girls).

Citation needed, obviously.

Roe v Wade, which allegedly legitimized the killing of pre-birth human beings by their female parents.

Doesn't really matter. A court ruling is valid unless and until a higher court says it isn't. Obviously the SCOTUS, being the highest court in the land, cannot be over ruled. Ergo, all of its rulings are valid. I learned this in 3rd grade. You must have been out sick that day.

No, I simply reject the logically absurd and morally abhorrent idea that we are a government of men, and not laws, completely inverting John Adams' famous dictum.

This is what your twisted idea of valid amounts to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1gx2-WK4s


Here is the wording of the oaths Federal Judges must take. They swear to uphold the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. Any ruling that contravenes those two things is axiomatically INvalid, as it violates both the legal documents/concepts AND the oath.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm catching on that you are insane. A court ruling cannot make valid and legal a clearly INvalid and ILlegal thing (in the case I postulated, raping little girls).

A law is a valid law if it is properly created by the legislative branch, authorized by the executive branch.

A law is only illegal if the judicial branch declares it contrary to the Constitution.

This is basic civics.

Law and morality are not equivalent. There have been many U.S. laws that judges felt were moral and legal at one time (ex. Women should not be able to vote, hold political office, own property in their own right, or contract), but were later ruled to be contrary to the Constitution. Your example will only come to pass if the U.S. suddenly decides that little girls are not persons under the law and therefore are not protected by it.

No, I simply reject the logically absurd and morally abhorrent idea that we are a government of men, and not laws, completely inverting John Adams' famous dictum.

Actually, your little example is John Adams' dictum taken to an extreme. Inverting it would allow people to disregard the laws and the rulings of the court and substituting their own preferences in the stead of judicial rules.

Here is the wording of the oaths Federal Judges must take. They swear to uphold the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. Any ruling that contravenes those two things is axiomatically INvalid, as it violates both the legal documents/concepts AND the oath.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

since no judicial ruling that I am aware of fails to provide the legal and constitutional basis from which it is derived, none are contrary to the judicial oaths.

You can disagree with a ruling, argue that other legal principles should be given greater weight, but until a higher court rules, or the legislature makes new law, you are sol.

 

[fuelair]

I'm catching on that you are insane. A court ruling cannot make valid and legal a clearly INvalid and ILlegal thing (in the case I postulated, raping little girls).



Roe v Wade, which allegedly legitimized the killing of pre-birth human beings by their female parents.



No, I simply reject the logically absurd and morally abhorrent idea that we are a government of men, and not laws, completely inverting John Adams' famous dictum.

This is what your twisted idea of valid amounts to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1gx2-WK4s


Here is the wording of the oaths Federal Judges must take. They swear to uphold the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. Any ruling that contravenes those two things is axiomatically INvalid, as it violates both the legal documents/concepts AND the oath.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

Minor quibbles, not only is Scrut not insane but I would give him a good 50% lead on you for fast and fun thinking. Also, I supported Roe v. Wade before there was a Roe v. Wade and more specifically from around 1957/8 and think those who block or otherwise infest abortion clinics should be no longer among us but elsewhere. For those who know, I'm thinking out in the cornfield. I do agree on the harming of little girls/children and I put the things that harass/close/block/shoot at abortion clinics in that category.

Have a nice day!!!!