Judicial Tyranny

Nasor said:
The constitution does... we don’t know if the law should be followed or not. Someone has to decide...
Click to expand...
What a nonsense. It is the point of law, that it must be followed. There is nothing to "decide" about it.
If you "decide" not follow the law, you are criminal, period.

e :D s
 
False. The law need not be followed if a judge repeals the law. Judges have that authority.
 
Or more correctly, a law does not need to be followed if it contradicts some higher law, be it a state law which is contradicted by a federal law, or a federal law which is contradicted by the constitution. It is judges who decide on these issues because, frankly, that's just their job! Judges judge, it's what they do.

extrasense, You seem to be having some trouble understanding the concept of a hierarchical system of laws. What other issues are you also still confused about?
 
Yep. These judicial powers are defined in article 3, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution.
 
zanket said:
False. The law need not be followed if a judge repeals the law. Judges have that authority.
Click to expand...
This IS the bloody problem. Judges must not be in control of the Law. Only legislators should be.

e :D s
 
Then you hope for dictatorship. Judges in control of the law is a little safety net the framers of the Constitution called "checks-and-balances". It allows a democracy to stay a democracy. Without even looking at your first post in this thread I can tell that you dislike this judicial power because you desire mean-spirited control over others--that's what dictators like too. And that in turn tells me that you are a Republican.
 
zanket said:
Then you hope for dictatorship. Judges in control of the law is a little safety net the framers of the Constitution called "checks-and-balances".
Click to expand...
You are soroughly wrong.
There are 3 branches of government.
The laws are supposed to be created by the Legislative branch.
The Judiciary branch is supposed to apply the laws.
The Executive branch is supposed to execute the laws.

"Checks and balances" means just that.

Anything else is a perversion.
Anything else is a slavery and tyranny.

e :D s
 
Asguard said:
actually the judges are surposed to INTERPRETE the laws
Click to expand...
If a law needs "interpretation", it is a bad law. It should be amended or fixed by the legislative branch.

We need introduce public caning for the judges that go wild under false pretext of "interpreting" the law.

e :cool: s
 
extrasense said:
If a law needs "interpretation", it is a bad law. It should be amended or fixed by the legislative branch.
Click to expand...

And just who decides when the legislators "go wild under false pretext"?

How do we, the people, control the legislators? What keeps them in line? What makes them qualified to make, amend and to judge laws?

Extrasense, all you're doing, as far as I can see, is ranting against the Supreme Court judges, but offering no logical, reasoned, better alternative. That's just ranting, isn't it?

Baron Max
 
extrasense said:
The legislators are "controled" through the ballot box.
Click to expand...

So ...we vote them into office and THEN they make some totally stupid law before the next election. What then? That law has already become a law ...before you could do anything about it. Now what?

And worse, you've eliminated the very people who could help you solve the above problem .....the Supreme Court justices!

See? You're not actually thinking about all of the issues and the consequences. You've narrowed your focus on the Supreme Court justices and you don't seem to be able to view any of the consequences of what you're proposing.

I mean, take your last post ....how could you have made that post without thinking about what I've just asked you? You think the ballot box, once every four years is some kind of "control" on what they do during all of those four years? How could you?

Baron Max
 
extrasense said:
The Judiciary branch is supposed to apply the laws.
Click to expand...

Not only that. They also have the authority to interpret the laws and repeal them. Pretend otherwise all you want.
 
how about you vote them in and then they decide to make a law that gives them life terms?
 
If such law is enacted, it must be obeyed. There is no contradiction to the Constitution. As you say, reasonable people can disagree in some cases, which means that Constitution can not be used to oppose such law.
That must be it. What you want, is for judges still to be able to claim something what is not explicit in the Constitution, as being there. It is a back door to abuse and tyranny. Amend Constitution, if there is a good reason for something. Do not let anyone to lie that there is something there, which is not there.
Click to expand...
All laws are subject to the Constitution, otherwise why would there be a Constitution?

If the laws passed by the Legislature are faulty, who is going to amend them? The Legislature?

You clearly don't understand the whole process. The process of creating a law is something undergone by the Legislative bodies in the hope of achieving some kind of effect, like increasing Homeland Security or stopping drugs in schools. Generally one side wants to pass the law as stringently as possible and the other side wants to ameliorate the law in order to a) inflict some kind of defeat on the majority and b) safeguard people's rights that might be trampled upon by an over-reaching Legislature and Executive. At the end of the day, however, the majority is going to get its way and will pass a law. The entire process is tainted with party politics. Now, the opposition may have used several arguments about whether certain clauses were Constitutional or not. But that is only a matter of whether it's worth passing a law that will get struck down. On the other hand, the law may not have raised any red flags about Constitutionality at all.

At the points of drafting and passing through the Houses, laws are just dead collections of words. Laws only become alive when they are actually tested in courts of Law.

Every law involves people. If a Law is enacted, some person is going to fall foul of that law, or be perceived as having done so. To determine whether a person broke a law, the matter is tested in a court of law, supervised by a Judge.

Conversely there may simply be a dispute between two parties, which if not solved at arbitration may be taken to a court of Law where a Judge will decide which solution most fits with current laws.

In defence against a charge might be pleaded the fact that an interpretation of the Law allows for whatever action was committed. It is up to a Judge to determine whether the law has been contravened or not.

A person is convicted or at least does not get the result they wanted. They appeal. What does this mean? It does not mean that they have a retrial in which they reiterate "I didn't do it!". No, an appeal is where you claim that the result did not go your way because of some misinterpretation of the law, or you were convicted by some means - treatment of evidence in court, for example - which itself contravened the law. Or that the law under which you were convicted is in fact in conflict with the Constitution - like, most famously, Roe v. Wade.

Both Laws and the Constitution are subject to interpretation. One person gets their way by interpreting the law or the Constitution one way, and the opponent gets their way by interpreting it the other way. A society determines people qualified to make such determinations, calls them judges and gives them that authority.

The Supreme Court in fact has no such tyrranical power that you are suggesting in any case, because they initiate nothing. They see whatever cases are brought to their attention which have passed through lower courts. They do not simply pick any old law, declare it Unconstitutional and impose their own laws. They make determination of the applicability and Constitutionality of laws which have been brought into question by the citizenry. That is democracy.

Your idea is that the Law is the Law, and bad laws must only be changed by the Legislature. But if someone loses out because of bad law - loses their liberty, or their rightful property, or access to their family - what, they have to wait until the Legislature changes its mind? But since laws can not by your rules even be questioned, how will the Legislature even know to change those laws? This is not democracy and more importantly, it is not justice.

Democracy does not solely consist of voting for people to pass the laws - in fact the very act of having to solicit a vote is fundamentally corrupting. And that is why the Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. They have no-one to answer to except themselves and their concept of Justice.

It's not a perfect system (see Justice Scalia), but believe me it works a hell of a lot better than a Legislature that has no judicial oversight whatsoever.

Asguard said:
how about you vote them in and then they decide to make a law that gives them life terms?
Click to expand...
Thank you, Asgard for making a good example.
 
Last edited:
Silas said:
...that the law under which you were convicted is in fact in conflict with the Constitution ...
Click to expand...
What should have been said, intead of your wrong formulation, is that defence did not properly brought up the Constitution during the trial
If a higher court makes such determination, it can require retrial.

One person gets their way by interpreting the law or the Constitution one way, and the opponent gets their way by interpreting it the other way. A society determines people qualified to make such determinations, calls them judges and gives them that authority.
Click to expand...
Those are the trial judges, and the thing has nothing to do with the "constitutionaly" sham.

Your idea is that the Law is the Law, and bad laws must only be changed by the Legislature. But if someone loses out because of bad law - loses their liberty, or their rightful property, or access to their family - what, they have to wait until the Legislature changes its mind?
Click to expand...
Yes they have to.


Thank you, Asgard for making a good example.
Click to expand...
I consider it an imbecile example

e :D s
 
extrasense it isn't a sham - I am not talking about guilty criminals bending the rules in order to be freed, I am talking about laws which contain elements which deny certain classes of people of their Constitutional rights, whether that was the intention of the framers of that law or not. That was why I cited Roe v. Wade. Laws which prohibited abortion were shown to be un-Constitutional in that they deprived women of the equal protection of the Law guaranteed by the Constitution.

Obviously it's no good arguing with you, it has been explained several times, impeccably, (far better than I have attempted to do) that the Supreme Court is the guarantor and protection for the Constitution that you seem to think is being violated. The danger to the Constitution and let's not beat about the bush, to the rights of American citizens, comes from the Legislature and primarily the Executive branch. But if you want to go on believing that the Supreme Court is the vanguard of tyranny, there clearly isn't anything anyone can say to change your mind.

It may interest you to know that I do not believe that there is a single member of either House of Congress who would agree with you about the role of the judiciary, whether or not individual members agree with every decision of the Court.

[edit: I must have looked at "tyrrany" about 20 times over the last two days before realising it was the wrong spelling!]
 
Last edited:
Silas said:
But if you want to go on believing that the Supreme Court is the vanguard of tyrrany, there clearly isn't anything anyone can say to change your mind...
Click to expand...

See, you admit that there is no logical argument for your point of view.

The Judiciary is now the criminal branch of Government, as far as the Constitution is concerned.

The two other branches have the right and obligation to straighten the Judiciary out, to take from it any ability to judge on the questions of Constitutionality.

e :) s
 
extrasense said:
See, you admit that there is no logical argument for your point of view.
Click to expand...
Actually what I was saying is that you are completely blind and deaf to all logical arguments. That doesn't mean the arguments aren't logical, just that for some reason you are completely blind and deaf to them. That's rather your problem than mine.

extrasense said:
The Judiciary is now the criminal branch of Government, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Click to expand...
I'd like to get an idea of whether you're approaching this from a liberal or conservative standpoint. Can you give us some examples you think represent what the execrable Justice Scalia referred to as "judicial adventurism"? For example, is it because the Court stated that the men in Guantanamo Bay were detained illegally (which would mean you were conservative) or because they struck down a federal gun law (which would mean you were liberal)?

extrasense said:
The two other branches have the right and obligation to straighten the Judiciary out, to take from it any ability to judge on the questions of Constitutionality.

e :) s
Click to expand...
Before saying that, why did you not first address my point that it is the two other branches which are the threat to Constitutional rights (primarily the Executive), not the Court. In any case, it's clearly a nonsensical statement because any kind of removing of the constitutional duties of the judiciary would, by definition, be unconstitutional. No amendment to the Constitution has ever made any alteration to the different limits and jurisdictions of any one of the Branches. If one was passed it would be more controversial and unacceptable than even the Marriage Amendment would be.

I recommend www.usconstitution.net as a good discussion site. The FAQ is quite good.
 
Silas said:
removing of the constitutional duties of the judiciary would, by definition, be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Where from did you come with "constuitutional duty" of the Judiciary to judge (un)constitutionality of a Law.
It is the point, that doing so is uconstitutional!

It is actually a criminal usurpation of the power.

ES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top