The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[kevmicsmi]

When I heard that South Dakota did this, my initial thought was "don't they have to follow the Constitution in South Dakota? Who the hell do they think that they are?"
).

Thats kind of what I thought about the supreme court back in the day

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thats kind of what I thought about the supreme court back in the day

Now that's a peculiar response.

 

[kevmicsmi]

. You don't get a judical review until the bill becomes law.

Maybe I should try this again.........THEREFORE WHAT?

 

[kevmicsmi]

Now that's a peculiar response.

Gosh I know God forbid supreme court justices interpret the constitution, instead of legislate from the bench.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gosh I know God forbid supreme court justices interpret the constitution, instead of legislate from the bench.

There is not a difference.

 

[kevmicsmi]

There is not a difference.

Yes there is

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes there is

Please explain.

In my view, the only way that judges cannot "legislate from the bench" is not to make any rulings whatsoever because their rulings are essentially law - they are the authoritative interpretations of the law. No law is specific enough to be ruled literally in every case, which is why we have judges in the first place. Their role is to examine the applicable law and determine how it applies to situations in real life, and to write opinions as to how the law should be applied, which becomes precedence for later rulings, and in being precedence, the rulings are authoritative.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Please explain.

In my view, the only way that judges cannot "legislate from the bench" is not to make any rulings whatsoever because their rulings are essentially law - they are the authoritative interpretations of the law. No law is specific enough to be ruled literally in every case, which is why we have judges in the first place. Their role is to examine the applicable law and determine how it applies to situations in real life, and to write opinions as to how the law should be applied, which becomes precedence for later rulings, and in being precedence, the rulings are authoritative.

Legislating from the bench is probably a poor way to explain myself. I see the light!

My problem is with justices who rule or give opinions based on what they think SHOULD be in the constitution, or what they think is good public policy, instead of what is actually in the document

 

[Pah]

Legislating from the bench is probably a poor way to explain myself. I see the light!

My problem is with justices who rule or give opinions based on what they think SHOULD be in the constitution, or what they think is good public policy, instead of what is actually in the document

I wonder who or what decides, in your mind, what is or is not in the Constitution? If it is other than the Supreme Court itself, then you are wrong. Maybury v Madison settled the issue (as held by Marshall) in the very early history of the court.

I'm afraid in your slanted view, you have neglected the history and workings of the court.

 

[Pah]

...judges cannot "legislate from the bench" .....

This is a true statement. No court has written a law from the bench. The courts invalidate a law but don't replace it. Only a legislature may write law. Only the Supreme Court can say whether the law is constitutional.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is a true statement. No court has written a law from the bench. The courts invalidate a law but don't replace it. Only a legislature may write law. Only the Supreme Court can say whether the law is constitutional.

That's why the phrase "legislate from the bench" is an inappropriate phrase.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I wonder who or what decides, in your mind, what is or is not in the Constitution? If it is other than the Supreme Court itself, then you are wrong. Maybury v Madison settled the issue (as held by Marshall) in the very early history of the court.

I'm afraid in your slanted view, you have neglected the history and workings of the court.

I am talking about the supreme court

 

[kevmicsmi]

That's why the phrase "legislate from the bench" is an inappropriate phrase.

Rising sun is an inappropriate phrase too, but commonly used

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rising sun is an inappropriate phrase too, but commonly used

:bonk:

There has got to be a name for this kind of logical fallacy.

 

[kevmicsmi]

:bonk:

There has got to be a name for this kind of logical fallacy.

I think im done with the course on stupid debates 101 so if you want to actually talk about something remotely related to the thread, ill rejoin

 

[jamaesi]

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
-Professor Jamie Raskin

I can't fathom the horror of rape or incest.

I can.
Both.

However, I don't see how these circumstances warrant aborting an innocent life, especially when the morning after pill is effective and can be made available to a female who has been raped. I believe it works successfully 75% of the time if taken within the first 24-48 hours of sex...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Regardless of the negative rep that adoption receives...it's still an available alternative.

My rape was never reported or treated. A lot of women who have just been raped NEVER report it. The morning after pill is a good thing, yes, but if it was over the counter it would be a lot better.

If someone wants to carry the fetus to term- good on them. But no one has ANY right to force someone who has just been violated through nine more months of it if they don't want to.

If I had gotten pregnant from my rape and been denied abortion- I doubt either I or the fetus would have made it to term.

Statistically speaking...special victims makes up a very small percentage of individuals who are receiving abortions within the US.

It doesn't matter how small it is. They deserve protection.

 

[kevmicsmi]

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
-Professor Jamie Raskin



I can.
Both.



My rape was never reported or treated. A lot of women who have just been raped NEVER report it. The morning after pill is a good thing, yes, but if it was over the counter it would be a lot better.

If someone wants to carry the fetus to term- good on them. But no one has ANY right to force someone who has just been violated through nine more months of it if they don't want to.

If I had gotten pregnant from my rape and been denied abortion- I doubt either I or the fetus would have made it to term.



It doesn't matter how small it is. They deserve protection.

Are you in favor of limiting abortion except in rape or life of the mother?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think im done with the course on stupid debates 101 so if you want to actually talk about something remotely related to the thread, ill rejoin

You're right. It is a stupid and hardly qualifies as a "debate" if we cannot come up with meaningful definitions for concepts that we use to defend our views.

You're incorrect in saying that it is not remotely related to the OP. This tiresome conversation is directly related to the OP because it pertains to the fact that some Republicans say that justices who overturn unconstitional laws like those prohibiting abortion and homosexual civil rights are legislating from the bench.

 

[kevmicsmi]

You're right. It is a stupid and hardly qualifies as a "debate" if we cannot come up with meaningful definitions for concepts that we use to defend our views.

You're incorrect in saying that it is not remotely related to the OP. This tiresome conversation is directly related to the OP because it pertains to the fact that some Republicans say that justices who overturn unconstitional laws like those prohibiting abortion and homosexual civil rights are legislating from the bench.

You dont understand what I am talking about, but thank you for finally posting something with substance. The Legislating from the bench I was reffering to WAS THE ORIGINAL ROE V WADE DECISION. by the way, Im not republican.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You dont understand what I am talking about, but thank you for finally posting something with substance. The Legislating from the bench I was reffering to WAS THE ORIGINAL ROE V WADE DECISION. by the way, Im not republican.

That's irrelevant.

EDIT: You can't give a meaningful definition to "legislating from the bench" so it is irrelevant that you were referring to THE ORIGINAL ROE V WADE DECISION.