Ketanji Should Be Disqualified

[meaner gene]

Sometimes the court won't throw out a law, but instead add additional requirements (that the legislature left out) to the statute law, such as what types of felonies qualify in a three strikes (repeat offender) law.

Placing restrictions is sometimes necessary when it would be impractical to throw out the law in it's entirety, because that would legalize that act, until the legislature could get a new version passed.

This is an example of what politicians call judges "making law"

 

[Rye Catcher]

Bullshit......there was and is no law banning homosexuals from pursuing happiness.

Dumb Donald tried.

 

[BS Filter]

No god wrote either of them.

Says you.

 

[BS Filter]

classy

Thanks.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There are two classes of law.
Statutory law, and case law.

Statutory law is made up by the legislatures
Case law is made up by judges.

Case law isn't a new law, but like regulatory law, giving clear definitions and guidelines to interpreting statute law. Such as the statute may say "several prior convictions", case law will put a range of numbers to define "several".

You’re still talking about legislating from the bench.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Who said anything about judges "making law"?
Legislators make law, but then judges decide is the legislation is legal or not.
Then judges decide if the legislation applies in any particular case.
They point is you can't enforce any legislation until a judge rules on the particular case.

Ultimately you’re endorsing legislation from the bench using semantics as an excuse. What does the word ‘is’ mean?

 

[Leo123]

You’re still talking about legislating from the bench.

Lefties don't know the difference.

 

[BS Filter]

Lefties don't know the difference.

Some know the difference and don't care.

 

[meaner gene]

You’re still talking about legislating from the bench.

Not legislating, correcting. If the legislature wrote the law correctly, there would be no ambiguity in its meaning, and it would be in strict compliance with the requirements of the US Constitution. But legislatures don't always do that.

We saw it in the Florida election law, which said that votes should be counted when the intent of the voter could be determined. Which is why you had hanging chads, pregnant chads, and dimpled chads that the machines rejected, being counted during a hand recount.

 

[surada]

Look at you trying to justify NOT sentencing pedophiles to the maximum sentence possible by law. Do you molest kids? Do you approve of molesting kids? Explain here on a public forum why child abusers should not receive the maximum penalty allowed by law. Matter of fact, explain why they should even be allowed to continue to breathe the same air that the rest of us do, you pedo-sympathizing fuck.

What about Josh Duggar?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Post the link then.

Yes Trump did and you didn’t have a problem with it so don’t act all outraged now.

Man twice bailed out by Kamala Harris-backed fund — gets arrested again
Why would you have a problem with paying for someone's legal fees?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not legislating, correcting. If the legislature wrote the law correctly, there would be no ambiguity in its meaning, and it would be in strict compliance with the requirements of the US Constitution. But legislatures don't always do that.

We saw it in the Florida election law, which said that votes should be counted when the intent of the voter could be determined. Which is why you had hanging chads, pregnant chads, and dimpled chads that the machines rejected, being counted during a hand recount.

That’s semantics, not law.

 

[The Original Tree]

Not very convincing on either of your points.

I don’t need to convince anyone. You already know God exists, and you know Jesus was God the son of God, who came to rescue man from himself.

Whether to your eternal salvation or your eternal damnation I testify to The Truth you already know.

 

[Roadrunner76]

The REAL PROBLEM with Ketanji Brown is that she will vote in accord with the prevailing leftists ideologies, rather than
interpret the Constitution. She will twist the constitution like this : The Constitution says "The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness" but how d fuk is I supposed to pursue anything if Im broke; give me money.

 

[BS Filter]

The REAL PROBLEM with Ketanji Brown is that she will vote in accord with the prevailing leftists ideologies, rather than
interpret the Constitution. She will twist the constitution like this : The Constitution says "The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness" but how d fuk is I supposed to pursue anything if Im broke; give me money.

Correct. Senator Blackburn asked a very revealing question. Why would such a simple question be so difficult? It's all about "identity". Everything can be changed, even reality. "We're not pissing on your boots, that's rain". If you question their reality, there's something wrong with YOU, not their pretend world.

 

[Rigby5]

You’re still talking about legislating from the bench.

When legislators write illegal legislation or fail to write legislation to defend individual rights, then judges are SUPPOSED to legislate from the bench.
That is essential to law, and has always been.
Originally there was no legislation at all, and judges had to go entirely by precedent.
We called it Common Law.
We adopted the British Common Law when we formed the US.
There are lots of individual rights that are still not legislated, like privacy.
And you could NEVER possibly legislate all rights, because they are infinite.
Judges will ALWAYS have to essentially legislate from the bench, to some degree.
That is why it is so important who we pick to be judges.

 

[Rigby5]

Not legislating, correcting. If the legislature wrote the law correctly, there would be no ambiguity in its meaning, and it would be in strict compliance with the requirements of the US Constitution. But legislatures don't always do that.

We saw it in the Florida election law, which said that votes should be counted when the intent of the voter could be determined. Which is why you had hanging chads, pregnant chads, and dimpled chads that the machines rejected, being counted during a hand recount.

Judges still always have to legislate from the bench because individual rights are infinite and can never be completely or totally legislated ahead of time.

 

[Rigby5]

Ultimately you’re endorsing legislation from the bench using semantics as an excuse. What does the word ‘is’ mean?

Fine, sure, judges do have to essentially legislate.
That is because legislators can not see the future and can not anticipate all circumstances that can come up.
Exceptions to legislation will always come up, and judges will always need to be able to nullify legislation when necessary.

 

[Rigby5]

Lefties don't know the difference.

Righties do not realize that the individuals in all court cases are the source of authority, NOT the legislators who pretend to be the source of law.

 

[BS Filter]

Fine, sure, judges do have to essentially legislate.
That is because legislators can not see the future and can not anticipate all circumstances that can come up.
Exceptions to legislation will always come up, and judges will always need to be able to nullify legislation when necessary.

The problem is this: The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. That's all.