Amy Coney Barrett's America

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Don't put words in my mouth. That's idiotic.

You said the court made interracial marriages a guaranteed right. A guaranteed right, per the Constitution, is law.

You really should read the Constitution. You obviously don't know what it says.

And so you admit that you disapprove of the action by the court that tossed out bans on interracial marriage.? I am willing to bet that you had no such criticsm of the court when they tossed out the bans on same sex marriage. Admit it you were silent even that that too "created a law".

So if that court cannot invalidate laws because it "creates a law" ( unless it is a law that it creats a law that you want to stand) , please explain what it can do using specific examples. Are you prepared to argue that states are not required to abide by the 14th amendment which extends the bill of rights to state law and provides for equal protection under the law?

While we are giving out reading asignments, You should read The Activist. Marbury V. Madison on the issue of Judicial Review

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

And so you admit that you disapprove of the action by the court that tossed out bans on interracial marriage.? I am willing to bet that you had no such criticsm of the court when they tossed out the bans on same sex marriage. Admit it you were silent even that that too "created a law".

So if that court cannot invalidate laws because it "creates a law" ( unless it is a law that it creats a law that you want to stand) , please explain what it can do using specific examples. Are you prepared to argue that states are not required to abide by the 14th amendment which extends the bill of rights to state law and provides for equal protection under the law?

While we are giving out reading asignments, You should read The Activist. Marbury V. Madison on the issue of Judicial Review

You're wrong, as usual. I'm simply correcting you comment that a court ruling made interracial marriage a guaranteed right. My position on interracial marriage is irrelevant. Just because you support interracial marriage doesn't give the court the power to make law.

I absolutely made the same argument when the court tossed a gay marriage ban (not all).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're wrong, as usual. I'm simply correcting you comment that a court ruling made interracial marriage a guaranteed right. My position on interracial marriage is irrelevant. Just because you support interracial marriage doesn't give the court the power to make law.

I absolutely made the same argument when the court tossed a gay marriage ban (not all).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're wrong, as usual. I'm simply correcting you comment that a court ruling made interracial marriage a guaranteed right. My position on interracial marriage is irrelevant. Just because you support interracial marriage doesn't give the court the power to make law.

I absolutely made the same argument when the court tossed a gay marriage ban (not all).

Yes I am sure that you did make the same argument on same sex marriage. I misspoke on that My bad. You have not answered my question. If the courts cannot invalidate laws that violate the Constitution, what can they do ? What is their purpose?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Yes I am sure that you did make the same argument on same sex marriage. I misspoke on that My bad. You have not answered my question. If the courts cannot invalidate laws that violate the Constitution, what can they do ? What is their purpose?

That is it's purpose. But, that isn't what you said. Is it? You said "case law" and the Loving decision "guarantees the right" and that is incorrect. Case law isn't law, period

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is it's purpose. But, that isn't what you said. Is it? You said "case law" and the Loving decision "guarantees the right" and that is incorrect. Case law isn't law, period

You are going in circles here. You are hung up on whether or not case law is "law" The fact is that it carries the force of law. Do you or do you not believe that the court acted appropriatly in Loving and in Obergefell and if not, why not? How do the not gaurantee a right to interracial and gay marriage?

 

[surada]

And that's a good thing with how the Dems are trying to dismantle the COTUS.

Donald Trump vs The Constitution | The Libertarian Institute

Donald Trump vs The Constitution | The Libertarian Institute

Donald Trump is a lot of things; a fan of the Constitution isn’t one of them. Throughout his relatively short time as president Donald Trump has verbally assaulted no less than five amendments. Most of these have come in the form of an ill-conceived tweet and haven’t actually led to…

libertarianinstitute.org

In November of 2016, Donald Trump stated that flag burning should be illegal and that offenders should either lose their citizenship or serve jail time. In this statement Trump showed a disregard for not only the First Amendment but most likely the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as well. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v.

 

[surada]

President Trump, Mocking the Constitution | Constitutional ...

President Trump, Mocking the Constitution | Constitutional Accountability Center

In the Trump era, Congress and the courts are like cops walking the beat to protect the rule of law. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump is thumbing his nose at both of them. The question remains: When will there be consequences for the unprecedented level of shameless, flagrant corruption and...

www.theusconstitution.org

Mocking the Constitution he swore to uphold, President Trump’s G7 comments confirm what we have long known: Unless the courts expeditiously require the President to comply with the words of America’s founders, constitutional provisions like the Foreign Emoluments Clause soon will lose all practical effect, allowing presidents to profit from foreign governments without first obtaining the consent of Congress.

 

[surada]

How Trump Threatens the Constitution | Washington Monthly

How Trump Threatens the Constitution | Washington Monthly

The framers devised a system of checks and balances to save us from someone just like him.

washingtonmonthly.com

Since taking office, he has been seizing powers for himself that are assigned exclusively to the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution. These exclusive powers include taxing ...

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You are going in circles here. You are hung up on whether or not case law is "law" The fact is that it carries the force of law. Do you or do you not believe that the court acted appropriatly in Loving and in Obergefell and if not, why not? How do the not gaurantee a right to interracial and gay marriage?

No, case law doesn't carry the force of law. Only legislation carries the force of law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, case law doesn't carry the force of law. Only legislation carries the force of law.

Really? So how come no state has even tried to reinstate bans on gay marriage? You know that there are those who would like to? Maybe your problem is that you don't understande what force of law means You just keep proving how little you know and understand

1. Case Law | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute​

   

   case law

   www.law.cornell.edu
   Case law is law that is based on judicial decisions rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law concerns unique disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case. By contrast, statutes and regulations are written abstractly. Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, refers to the collection of precedents and authority set by previous judicial decisions on …
   _______________________________________________________________________
   Do police have to abide by these decisions? Yes or No?
   
   

2. • Case Law 4 Cops-Major Cases that Affect Police​

     www.caselaw4cops.net/major_cases.htm
     Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-The Mirandacase is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given.
     • Mapp V. Ohio · Use of Force · Carroll V. U.S · Tennessee V. Garner

 

[surada]

Really? So howcome no state has even tried to stop gays from marrying? You know that there are those who would like to? Maybe your problem is that you don't understande what force of law means You just keep proving how little you know and understand

1. Case Law | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute​

   

   case law

   www.law.cornell.edu
   Case law is law that is based on judicial decisions rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law concerns unique disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case. By contrast, statutes and regulations are written abstractly. Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, refers to the collection of precedents and authority set by previous judicial decisions on …
   _______________________________________________________________________
   Do police have to abide by these decisions? Yes or No?
   
   

2. • Case Law 4 Cops-Major Cases that Affect Police​

     www.caselaw4cops.net/major_cases.htm
     Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-The Mirandacase is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given.
     • Mapp V. Ohio · Use of Force · Carroll V. U.S · Tennessee V. Garner

Cornell is an excellent source. Bravo.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Really? So how come no state has even tried to reinstate bans on gay marriage? You know that there are those who would like to? Maybe your problem is that you don't understande what force of law means You just keep proving how little you know and understand

1. Case Law | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute​

   

   case law

   www.law.cornell.edu
   Case law is law that is based on judicial decisions rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law concerns unique disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case. By contrast, statutes and regulations are written abstractly. Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, refers to the collection of precedents and authority set by previous judicial decisions on …
   _______________________________________________________________________
   Do police have to abide by these decisions? Yes or No?
   
   

2. • Case Law 4 Cops-Major Cases that Affect Police​

     www.caselaw4cops.net/major_cases.htm
     Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-The Mirandacase is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given.
     • Mapp V. Ohio · Use of Force · Carroll V. U.S · Tennessee V. Garner

It's irrelevant. Case law isn't law. Period.

The Constitution says that laws can only be created by Congress. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think it's you that doesn't understand.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's irrelevant. Case law isn't law. Period.

The Constitution says that laws can only be created by Congress. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think it's you that doesn't understand.

I know what the Constitution says. I also know what the Marbury v. Madison decision says. Read the Advocate The bottom line is that the SCOTUS has the power of Judicial Review. Decisions that are made as the result of that power are enforceable. You do not have to call it law, even though everyone else who understands how thing work does. Keep bleating about how it is not law until you're blue in the face. You are arguing a moot point and you are becomming a a pain. Are court decisions enforceable or not? yes or no? .

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I know what the Constitution says. I also know what the Marbury v. Madison decision says. Read the Advocate The bottom line is that the SCOTUS has the power of Judicial Review. Decisions that are made as the result of that power are enforceable. You do not have to call it law, even though everyone else who understands how thing work does. Keep bleating about how it is not law until you're blue in the face. You are arguing a moot point and you are becomming a a pain. Are court decisions enforceable or not? yes or no? .

Review, not change, creation, nor interpretation. The court doesn't have the authority to change law, make law, amend the Constitution, or guarantee rights.

Are they enforceable? Not really, look at DACA.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Review, not change, creation, nor interpretation. The court doesn't have the authority to change law, make law, amend the Constitution, or guarantee rights.

Are they enforceable? Not really, look at DACA.

What in the name of frankenfuck are you blathering about. DACA was and executive order that is being kicked around in the courts' The Trump admoinistation attempted to end DACA and the court blocked it. It that is not enforcement , than what is

Summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in the DACA Cases

www.nilc.org

But it is not actually a constitutional question,. It is more of a proceedural issue so it is not really relevant to your so called argument

You are grasping at straws and are avoiding the many questions that I asked. Among them: how come no state has even tried to reinstate bans on gay marriage? ( If the SCOTUS ruling is unenforceable) You are becomming tedious. Read The Adviocate for Christ sake and get back to me when you are educated enough to discuss the topic intellegently.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Review, not change, creation, nor interpretation. The court doesn't have the authority to change law, make law, amend the Constitution, or guarantee rights.

Are they enforceable? Not really, look at DACA.

They can review but not interpret ? Are you fucking serious? What the fuck does that even mean? "OK we reviewed it but we have nothing further to say.." Give me a fucking break. You do not strike me as being that swift.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

They can review but not interpret ? Are you fucking serious? What the fuck does that even mean? "OK we reviewed it but we have nothing further to say.." Give me a fucking break. You do not strike me as being that swift.

No, not interpret. This country would be a clusterfuck if the courts could interpret the Constitution however they pleased. Leftist judges and justices are already taking us down that road. Only an idiot would want the courts to have that much leeway.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What in the name of frankenfuck are you blathering about. DACA was and executive order that is being kicked around in the courts' The Trump admoinistation attempted to end DACA and the court blocked it. It that is not enforcement , than what is

Summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in the DACA Cases

www.nilc.org

But it is not actually a constitutional question,. It is more of a proceedural issue so it is not really relevant to your so called argument

You are grasping at straws and are avoiding the many questions that I asked. Among them: how come no state has even tried to reinstate bans on gay marriage? ( If the SCOTUS ruling is unenforceable) You are becomming tedious. Read The Adviocate for Christ sake and get back to me when you are educated enough to discuss the topic intellegently.

DACA was blocked. Where the fuck you been?

Federal judge blocks new DACA applications

A federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program shielding certain undocumented immigrants from deportation, is illegal and blocked new applicants.

www.google.com

DACA is illegal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, not interpret. This country would be a clusterfuck if the courts could interpret the Constitution however they pleased. Leftist judges and justices are already taking us down that road. Only an idiot would want the courts to have that much leeway.

OK I get it. You're a Constitutional Texuralist. You must visit Scalia's grave on a regular basis That is kind of like a religious fundamentalist. If it is not specifically stated it can't be valid. A ridgid and unyeilding way of thinking that I have no use for. Forunatly for the country most Judges, Justices and legal scholars do not agree, otherwise we would be stuck in the 18th century

The framers of the constitution knew that they could not possible forsee all of the issues that would later arise. They had the wisdome to draft a a living and breathing document that could be adopted to changing times. That we there are many unenumerated rights such as same sex marriage that flow from the rights that are stated in the constitution

You bleat about leftist Justices interpreting the Constitution. But the fact is that Justices on both the right and the left make mistakes and issue opinions that are not solidly grounded in Constitutional law . No all decisions favor the left. Even before Trump stacked the court, they gutted the Voting Rights Act. I'm sure that you were upset about that. LOL

Give the fact that we often have a congress that is stuck in the mud, having an activist court is often the only way that anything will ever get done.

I have come to the conclusion that this is not anargument that can be won by either of us because our positions are deeply rooted in our divergent philosophies on the Constitution. Since Texturalism is a view that is reccognised by some scholars as valid, we are both right to a point. The difference is that you approach is not well suited to the realities of our times and there is a certain arrogance to it that totally disregards the human consequences of government actions.

We also have vastly differing political orientations which further complicates things . I think that we are done here. However, I am curious about why you think the SCOTUS exists at all if all that they can do in interpret the law or the Constitution and hve no power to act on it.