Kansas Olligarch Governor ends independent Judiciary

[ponderingturtle]

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).

Of course the legal rape of married women was not a problem at all for anyone ethically until the 70's. Before that raping your wife was a contradiction in terms.

So before the criminalization of spousal rape, how as spousal rape illegal and invalid?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

BS!
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.

Correct. Everyone is free to interpret the Constitution. SCOTUS has the only interpretation which (ultimately) counts.

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

Of course it can. The SCOTUS "enforces" it.

 

[paiute]

If a batter hits a long fly ball which goes barely to the outside of the foul pole but the umpire rules it a home run, is it a home run?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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).

It's not illegal if the SCOTUS says it's legal. Have you considered taking a Logic 101 course at your local community collage?

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

I asked for a citation that the SCOTUS had legalized murdering "pre-birth humans". That was your claim, after all. Have you already forgotten? Do you have one?

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

I'm pretty sure The Emperor isn't on the Supreme Court.

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

If one of the justices isn't doing that, you should call the police.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

Courts are triers of law. The supreme court is not.

That would be a valid ruling. More accurately, there is no Constitutional recourse other than the branches opinions.

 

[Suddenly]

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.

The Court can overrule itself, and the Court can be, as to constitutional questions, overruled by amendment. If the issue is the interpretation of federal law it can be overruled by congress changing the statute.

 

[Suddenly]

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.

Who makes that call? You? Michael Badnarik?

Those in the executive branch could refuse to enforce a decision and I guess the congress could vote to impeach justices for failing to do their jobs (arguably violates the "good behavior" provision"), but it is obvious, if we are to have an independent judicary, that these remedies need to be only applied in the most absurd brutal, wrong decisions, wrong in a "a triangle has five sides" level of wrong. Not an "I disagree that a woman has a right to not take a rapist's baby to term" level of disagreement.

When this sort of thing is applied in any situation at all smelling like a difference of opinion, like your rhetoric about abortion, we might as well forget the concept of an independent judiciary and get ready for pure mob rule.

 

[sunmaster14]

The Court can overrule itself, and the Court can be, as to constitutional questions, overruled by amendment. If the issue is the interpretation of federal law it can be overruled by congress changing the statute.

Ultimately, the validity of any law, or the government which makes and upholds that law, depends on the view of the people. The more the government's actions deviate from the majority view of the people as to what is legal, then the more likely is the probability of a revolution. Thanks to the 2nd Amendment, less deviation is required for a revolution here than in most developed countries.

 

[Border Reiver]

Courts are triers of law. The supreme court is not.

I believe you are in error here (from the Supreme Court website):

According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes.

Loosely translated for the legalese impaired, the US constitution says that the Supreme Court of the United States is a trier of law, and in certain circumstances, fact as well.

 

[Aepervius]

Ultimately, the validity of any law, or the government which makes and upholds that law, depends on the view of the people. The more the government's actions deviate from the majority view of the people as to what is legal, then the more likely is the probability of a revolution. Thanks to the 2nd Amendment, less deviation is required for a revolution here than in most developed countries.

Interestingly, from my point of view, yet the US government gets away with more than what we would locally allow for corporation, for spying, drone killing or for torture. And yet you think less deviation are required.

I have to ask : what sort of deviation would lead to a revolution ? because that line in the sand seems to be far more off than I see it locally.

 

[sunmaster14]

Interestingly, from my point of view, yet the US government gets away with more than what we would locally allow for corporation, for spying, drone killing or for torture. And yet you think less deviation are required.

I have to ask : what sort of deviation would lead to a revolution ? because that line in the sand seems to be far more off than I see it locally.

Those things you mentioned are not deviations from the view of a sizable majority of Americans. Apparently your problem is not with the American government per se, but with Americans themselves.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Court can overrule itself, and the Court can be, as to constitutional questions, overruled by amendment.

Of course.

If the issue is the interpretation of federal law it can be overruled by congress changing the statute.

Assuming that statute isn't unconstitutional.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who makes that call? You? Michael Badnarik?

That's a name I haven't heard in years!

When Shanek posted here, he and Michael Badnarik actually argued that everyone could interpret the Constitution^*** (true), but (here's the kicker), everyone's interpretation was correct.

^***Or as Shanek called it, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!!