The SCOTUS has swung right and the liberals don't like the recent trend in the rulings of the Court... they are demonstrating in an attempt to coerce a more liberal stand by the Court. If they cannot convince the Court to embrace a more liberal course they will attempt to either expand the numbers on the court or remove Justice Thomas, one of the most consistent right-leaning justice on the court. The Marxists are unwilling to accept a conservative court and will d whatever it takes to return it to its liberal bias.
Both poltiical parties have poltiicized the courts by letting the Court's rulings become law... they are not law... the findings of the Court apply only to the case in law before it... if there is a constitutional issue Congress ... THE LEGISLATIVE BODY of the Federal Government must act to tix (amend or repeal) the law to make it Constituitonal. Until Congress acts to correct any deficiency in the law it remains valid as passed into law. If Congress disagrees with Scotus's ruling or finding as to the law it simply needs to ignore the Court and leave the law as originally written.
Stari Decisis must not be permitted to take on the form of law... the Judiciary Branch must not MAKE LAW. The Law of the Court is FIAT LAW... unconstitutional law and should not be used to administer the law. Courts render findings in law based on the facts, evidence, and their INTERPRETATION of the Law... in... IN... In... the case in law before them and No... No... Others. Congress must act to correct any deficiency found in the law by the Courts... not justices thru fiat law... the law of the court is not law... it is the court using fiat power... the usurped power of the Congress and President to make law.
Skeptical > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, RetiredApril 15, 2023 at 3:46pm
YEAH! What he said.
However your middle paragraph statement about the Legislature rectifying irregularities in what is acted upon as law (afforded judicial benefit of doubt until determined otherwise) provokes an interest.
Only the Legislature generates law (this as yet another side issue raising questions about the cascade of executive regulations, having the direct effect of law that require not just governments, but people also to observe).
If renderings from the bench are treated as new law, does that enfranchise the ruling/law (lawling) as only modifiable by the Legislature?
If not, and the Judiciary has an authority to modify such an irregularity as an exception, how shall we argue that the Judiciary is not also afforded an authority to modify or abolish unjust legislation?
(this would effectively place us full circle in the perspective of the Warren and, surpisingly, Berger courts)
I wish the Branches would take Constitutional note from "Q" and trust in the plan!
Now where is that Noncent man to declare this is all "interesting"?
Regulatory authority (regulations) and executive orders are not law... they are administrative in their power and are intended to assist the civil service in the execution of Congress's intent, concerning the law. Where regulatory or executive orders violate the intent of the law the bureaucrat should refuse to execute them...
The Court may set aside regulatory authority and executive orders in their findings... as they are not statutory law. As such the Court is merely removing an administrative fault not establishing law. Our founding Fathers expected the Judicial Branch would be the least powerful of the Branches as it is also the most dangerous of the Branches.. being the purview of unelected officials charged with keeping the other branches operating within the confines of the Constitution and the law the servant of the People... not their master.
Currently, we find the courts operating under the color of law thru the administration of fiat law... We must rewrite the Federal Judiciary Act to stop such usurpations of the law.
Skeptical > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, RetiredApril 15, 2023 at 11:18pm
Now Colonel, you know very well that I agree regulations and E.O.s are not law.
But cross one under executive observation and see what happens. The myriad sticky lines of our government regulatory web is erected to provide just this kind of opportunity.
The courts are showing restraint, and at times it seems the wrong times. Preserving the effective nature of fiat law until the perfect test case presents itself, is maddening at times.
If you find a way to exclude judicial activists who are underwritten by money to take office (back to money again), I am all for it. Hopefully, a commonly understood practical education in politics is the cure, but I am an optimist here.
Pardon me Skeptical... I did not intend to suggest you did not know regulatory authority and executive orders are not law. As for how we regain control over a runaway court... we rewrite the Federal Judiciary ... redistrict the courts putting every sitting judge out of business subject to a new appointment under the redistricted system... no need to impeach them all.
Congress then can ensure the Federal Judiciary Act defines key issues like jurisdiction and the court's authority.... making it clear the court's findings do not apply to the law... only to teh case in law before the court... ending the court's usurpation of the legislature's authority to make ALL LAWS.
Skeptical > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, RetiredMay 14, 2023 at 10:45am
No harm, no foul. Just me being self-conscious I guess.
For an advisory body, the Judiciary sure has had a pro-active effect.
(and unfortunately not always for the best)
This current court seems to have had a "come to Jesus" moment, THANK GOD!
PBS Absolutely can be defunded by Congress alone... it doesn't take an act of Congress or the president's signature to remove or reallocate discretionary funds.
Replies
NO COMMON LAW PRECEDENCE IS AFFORDED UNJUST LAW.
Scotus overstepped its authority in fabricating out of thin air this notion of female-specific and exclusive reproductive rights.
This current court had the guts to take account and strive to rectify the gross error.
Although galling how this court abrogated its Constitutional responsibility to the 2020 election fiasco, it still managed this accomplishment.
Seems there wasn't enough money to persuade or extort a different outcome. IMHO
The SCOTUS has swung right and the liberals don't like the recent trend in the rulings of the Court... they are demonstrating in an attempt to coerce a more liberal stand by the Court. If they cannot convince the Court to embrace a more liberal course they will attempt to either expand the numbers on the court or remove Justice Thomas, one of the most consistent right-leaning justice on the court. The Marxists are unwilling to accept a conservative court and will d whatever it takes to return it to its liberal bias.
Both poltiical parties have poltiicized the courts by letting the Court's rulings become law... they are not law... the findings of the Court apply only to the case in law before it... if there is a constitutional issue Congress ... THE LEGISLATIVE BODY of the Federal Government must act to tix (amend or repeal) the law to make it Constituitonal. Until Congress acts to correct any deficiency in the law it remains valid as passed into law. If Congress disagrees with Scotus's ruling or finding as to the law it simply needs to ignore the Court and leave the law as originally written.
Stari Decisis must not be permitted to take on the form of law... the Judiciary Branch must not MAKE LAW. The Law of the Court is FIAT LAW... unconstitutional law and should not be used to administer the law. Courts render findings in law based on the facts, evidence, and their INTERPRETATION of the Law... in... IN... In... the case in law before them and No... No... Others. Congress must act to correct any deficiency found in the law by the Courts... not justices thru fiat law... the law of the court is not law... it is the court using fiat power... the usurped power of the Congress and President to make law.
YEAH! What he said.
However your middle paragraph statement about the Legislature rectifying irregularities in what is acted upon as law (afforded judicial benefit of doubt until determined otherwise) provokes an interest.
Only the Legislature generates law (this as yet another side issue raising questions about the cascade of executive regulations, having the direct effect of law that require not just governments, but people also to observe).
If renderings from the bench are treated as new law, does that enfranchise the ruling/law (lawling) as only modifiable by the Legislature?
If not, and the Judiciary has an authority to modify such an irregularity as an exception, how shall we argue that the Judiciary is not also afforded an authority to modify or abolish unjust legislation?
(this would effectively place us full circle in the perspective of the Warren and, surpisingly, Berger courts)
I wish the Branches would take Constitutional note from "Q" and trust in the plan!
Now where is that Noncent man to declare this is all "interesting"?
Regulatory authority (regulations) and executive orders are not law... they are administrative in their power and are intended to assist the civil service in the execution of Congress's intent, concerning the law. Where regulatory or executive orders violate the intent of the law the bureaucrat should refuse to execute them...
The Court may set aside regulatory authority and executive orders in their findings... as they are not statutory law. As such the Court is merely removing an administrative fault not establishing law. Our founding Fathers expected the Judicial Branch would be the least powerful of the Branches as it is also the most dangerous of the Branches.. being the purview of unelected officials charged with keeping the other branches operating within the confines of the Constitution and the law the servant of the People... not their master.
Currently, we find the courts operating under the color of law thru the administration of fiat law... We must rewrite the Federal Judiciary Act to stop such usurpations of the law.
Now Colonel, you know very well that I agree regulations and E.O.s are not law.
But cross one under executive observation and see what happens. The myriad sticky lines of our government regulatory web is erected to provide just this kind of opportunity.
The courts are showing restraint, and at times it seems the wrong times. Preserving the effective nature of fiat law until the perfect test case presents itself, is maddening at times.
If you find a way to exclude judicial activists who are underwritten by money to take office (back to money again), I am all for it. Hopefully, a commonly understood practical education in politics is the cure, but I am an optimist here.
Pardon me Skeptical... I did not intend to suggest you did not know regulatory authority and executive orders are not law. As for how we regain control over a runaway court... we rewrite the Federal Judiciary ... redistrict the courts putting every sitting judge out of business subject to a new appointment under the redistricted system... no need to impeach them all.
Congress then can ensure the Federal Judiciary Act defines key issues like jurisdiction and the court's authority.... making it clear the court's findings do not apply to the law... only to teh case in law before the court... ending the court's usurpation of the legislature's authority to make ALL LAWS.
No harm, no foul. Just me being self-conscious I guess.
For an advisory body, the Judiciary sure has had a pro-active effect.
(and unfortunately not always for the best)
This current court seems to have had a "come to Jesus" moment, THANK GOD!
PBS BEING TAXPAYER FUNDED CAN HAVE FUNDS TAKEN AWAY.
PBS Absolutely can be defunded by Congress alone... it doesn't take an act of Congress or the president's signature to remove or reallocate discretionary funds.
No ifs and or buts abortion is murder
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next