The executive branch can nuder the supreme court

[Syriusly]

If the voters of a state passed a law banning all guns, the Supremes would say the state law is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench". Such a decision may be "violating the will of the People", but the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to violate our rights.

If a state passed a law requiring you to do 10 jumping jacks before you could vote, with exceptions made for the handicapped, such a law would probably be found to be constitutional even though it does not achieve its stated goal of preventing voter fraud. The constitution does not forbid retards from enacting completely useless laws.

On some rare occasions, Congress will pass a law which is unconstitutional, but which can be modified so that is it constitutional. On those occasions, the Supremes will explain what tweaks should be made to make the law constitutional. If one wanted to be an asshole, one could call this "legislating from the bench", or one could take it for what it is, an expert suggestion. Their way of saying, "We understand what you are trying to achieve, and here is a better and constitutional way to do it."

The problem isn't the Supreme Court striking down Unconstitutional laws, the problem is them not striking down Unconstitutional laws.

As for legislating from the bench, three examples

- Roe V. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, they just made up a Constitutional right
- Gay marriage. Gays had access to marriage equally with straights. If you don't think that's fair, that's fine. The Constitutional way to change it was through the legislature
- Obamacare. OK, the penalty being an income tax while being a stretch can be defended. That healthcare exchanges and mandating the coverage we need is a tax is ridiculous. And Obamacare was written so that if any party of the law was struck down, the bill was null and void.

None of those are the scenario you addressed as legislating from the bench. These three are pure legislating from the bench

None of those are legislation at all. Despite the RWNJ claims.

 

[kaz]

If the voters of a state passed a law banning all guns, the Supremes would say the state law is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench". Such a decision may be "violating the will of the People", but the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to violate our rights.

If a state passed a law requiring you to do 10 jumping jacks before you could vote, with exceptions made for the handicapped, such a law would probably be found to be constitutional even though it does not achieve its stated goal of preventing voter fraud. The constitution does not forbid retards from enacting completely useless laws.

On some rare occasions, Congress will pass a law which is unconstitutional, but which can be modified so that is it constitutional. On those occasions, the Supremes will explain what tweaks should be made to make the law constitutional. If one wanted to be an asshole, one could call this "legislating from the bench", or one could take it for what it is, an expert suggestion. Their way of saying, "We understand what you are trying to achieve, and here is a better and constitutional way to do it."

The problem isn't the Supreme Court striking down Unconstitutional laws, the problem is them not striking down Unconstitutional laws.

As for legislating from the bench, three examples

- Roe V. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, they just made up a Constitutional right
- Gay marriage. Gays had access to marriage equally with straights. If you don't think that's fair, that's fine. The Constitutional way to change it was through the legislature
- Obamacare. OK, the penalty being an income tax while being a stretch can be defended. That healthcare exchanges and mandating the coverage we need is a tax is ridiculous. And Obamacare was written so that if any party of the law was struck down, the bill was null and void.

None of those are the scenario you addressed as legislating from the bench. These three are pure legislating from the bench

Gays never had access to marriage equality. You'd have to be on crack to think so. If they had, they would have been getting married long ago and collecting all the same state and federal cash and prizes. They had a right to equal protection of the laws granting all those cash and prizes, and they were denied that right.


As for ObamaCare, I am with you on the mandate. However, Obamacare was not written so that if any part was struck down the bill was null and void. It was FINANCED in such a way that if the mandate was struck down, it would have been too expensive. The mandate could have been struck down, and Obamacare would have been still the law of the land. It just would not have been "budget neutral".

Of course they had equal access to marriage. They could marry someone of the opposite sex, they could not marry someone of the same sex. Being gay did not change who they could marry. Note since liberals always read everything in regards to your bizarre sense of "fair" rather than for content, yes, that is a literal, legal point. I'm not arguing fairness. However, literal, legal points are the job of the courts. Fairness points are the job of the legislature. Fair is subjective. Subjective is what the legislature debates.

As for what you said about Obamacare, what you said is just wrong. I don't understand why you would make up all the shit you did without looking it up. To survive a partial strike down, bills have to have language how a part strike down affects the bill. The bill didn't have that language, it should have entirely been struck down.

Roberts fixed that for them by saying they meant to put in language to survive a partial strike down. He gave them credit that in changing Senate rules and rushing Obamacare through before Brown could be seated to replace Kennedy, the Democrats forgot, but they meant to, so he just added it. The man is a human cesspool.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Who has to be nude when the EO is issued? Does the administration officials have to be nude or do the justices have to be nude?

No wonder we have a porn epidemic. All this nudity.

 

[kaz]

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

Ok, they didn't, or at least they didn't according to you. So, what exactly should be done?

Well, I'd impeach the ones who voted for those who are still on the court. Then again I'd impeach all the congressmen and Senators who voted for the Iraq War and for Obamacare too. And I'd charge everyone in congress with one count of armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. I'm probably not going to get my way on any of that. What's your point?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, fuck the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?

Well, they have interpreted the Constitution into pure meaninglessness, for one thing.

 

[kaz]

Who has to be nude when the EO is issued? Does the administration officials have to be nude or do the justices have to be nude?

No wonder we have a porn epidemic. All this nudity.

I guess now we know what they are, or aren't, wearing under their robes

 

[koshergrl]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

Who decides what is Constitutional and how is one removed? Do you follow the Constitutional process of impeachment or something else? And when Congress refuses to impeach, then what?

Good question. When the three branches collude together to subvert the constitution..what are we left with?

The Constitution tells us.

Explain, how that has happened. Give some detail, it's a heavy subject. What does the Constitution say?

Yeah, fuck the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?

Well, they have interpreted the Constitution into pure meaninglessness, for one thing.

And congress could, and should, check them.

But they don't do it.

 

[kaz]

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

Most of you don't even know what the Constitution actually is. You think it's a rule book giving them power to run our lives when it's actually a limit on government power

 

[kaz]

If the voters of a state passed a law banning all guns, the Supremes would say the state law is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench". Such a decision may be "violating the will of the People", but the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to violate our rights.

If a state passed a law requiring you to do 10 jumping jacks before you could vote, with exceptions made for the handicapped, such a law would probably be found to be constitutional even though it does not achieve its stated goal of preventing voter fraud. The constitution does not forbid retards from enacting completely useless laws.

On some rare occasions, Congress will pass a law which is unconstitutional, but which can be modified so that is it constitutional. On those occasions, the Supremes will explain what tweaks should be made to make the law constitutional. If one wanted to be an asshole, one could call this "legislating from the bench", or one could take it for what it is, an expert suggestion. Their way of saying, "We understand what you are trying to achieve, and here is a better and constitutional way to do it."

The problem isn't the Supreme Court striking down Unconstitutional laws, the problem is them not striking down Unconstitutional laws.

As for legislating from the bench, three examples

- Roe V. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, they just made up a Constitutional right
- Gay marriage. Gays had access to marriage equally with straights. If you don't think that's fair, that's fine. The Constitutional way to change it was through the legislature
- Obamacare. OK, the penalty being an income tax while being a stretch can be defended. That healthcare exchanges and mandating the coverage we need is a tax is ridiculous. And Obamacare was written so that if any party of the law was struck down, the bill was null and void.

None of those are the scenario you addressed as legislating from the bench. These three are pure legislating from the bench

None of those are legislation at all. Despite the RWNJ claims.

Right, the Constitution says whatever 5/9 say it says, that's not legislation, they voted, so now it says that ...

 

[SwimExpert]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[bendog]

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

Most of you don't even know what the Constitution actually is. You think it's a rule book giving them power to run our lives when it's actually a limit on government power

We need to keep the queers from marrying because the const is a limit on gummit power.

 

[koshergrl]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.

But you will tolerate your president sending fbi agents marching into Burns Oregon to kill people because he doesn't like the way the people use their own land...

 

[kaz]

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

Most of you don't even know what the Constitution actually is. You think it's a rule book giving them power to run our lives when it's actually a limit on government power

We need to keep the queers from marrying because the const is a limit on gummit power.

Another liberal moron.

I said gay marriage is a subject for the legislature, not the courts. You come back with more of your inane drivel.

Since you aren't smart enough to discuss legal versus your opinion, and since you incorrectly told me what my opinion is, actually I oppose all government marriage. So I don't advocate different straight/gay rules. You really are an idiot

 

[HappyJoy]

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

Ok, they didn't, or at least they didn't according to you. So, what exactly should be done?

Well, I'd impeach the ones who voted for those who are still on the court. Then again I'd impeach all the congressmen and Senators who voted for the Iraq War and for Obamacare too. And I'd charge everyone in congress with one count of armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. I'm probably not going to get my way on any of that. What's your point?

But as a citizen you don't have the right to impeach anyone. So, what would you do?

 

[HappyJoy]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.

But you will tolerate your president sending fbi agents marching into Burns Oregon to kill people because he doesn't like the way the people use their own land...

Yes. they took over a government building on public lands. They broke the law.

 

[bendog]

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

Most of you don't even know what the Constitution actually is. You think it's a rule book giving them power to run our lives when it's actually a limit on government power

We need to keep the queers from marrying because the const is a limit on gummit power.

Another liberal moron.

I said gay marriage is a subject for the legislature, not the courts. You come back with more of your inane drivel.

Since you aren't smart enough to discuss legal versus your opinion, and since you incorrectly told me what my opinion is, actually I oppose all government marriage. So I don't advocate different straight/gay rules. You really are an idiot

Me a moron, idiot. I merely combined your two posts. LOL Blow it out your constipated butt.

 

[kaz]

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

Ok, they didn't, or at least they didn't according to you. So, what exactly should be done?

Well, I'd impeach the ones who voted for those who are still on the court. Then again I'd impeach all the congressmen and Senators who voted for the Iraq War and for Obamacare too. And I'd charge everyone in congress with one count of armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. I'm probably not going to get my way on any of that. What's your point?

But as a citizen you don't have the right to impeach anyone. So, what would you do?

I answered your question. Do you have another one or are you just making playground arguments?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

In addition to working on their spelling, some folks here need to brush up on Civics.

Like? Nuder is a correctly spelled word. It just wasn't used in the right context. I honestly didn't know how to spell n****** as in spade and **** your pet. I also didn't care either.

 

[kaz]

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

Most of you don't even know what the Constitution actually is. You think it's a rule book giving them power to run our lives when it's actually a limit on government power

We need to keep the queers from marrying because the const is a limit on gummit power.

Another liberal moron.

I said gay marriage is a subject for the legislature, not the courts. You come back with more of your inane drivel.

Since you aren't smart enough to discuss legal versus your opinion, and since you incorrectly told me what my opinion is, actually I oppose all government marriage. So I don't advocate different straight/gay rules. You really are an idiot

Me a moron, idiot. I merely combined your two posts. LOL Blow it out your constipated butt.

Right, you combined them wrong. You said I was against queers marrying, which I never said. Hence, the idiot comment. Which you are further demonstrating