Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#165 : July 23, 2013, 05:49:01 PM

you will not admit it, but you should be able to see now why I bowed out of this conversation before and why I will do it again now.  There's no point in discussing an issue that isn't genuine.

CBW's issue is Judicial Review. How is that issue not genuine????

The issue is genuine (to some), CBW's interest in it is not. My comment could've been clearer, my bad. CBW raises it now because he is upset with the result. SEE . . . every other SCOTUS thread in here with many posts by CBW never mentioning the issue.

I don't recall anyone in this thread who has agreed with me on the issue having raised it before either, yet you aren't attacking their motivations. I love how Vince now claims to have the ability to see into one's mind and suggest that they are not sincere in their arguments, which conveniently, absolves him from having to address the merits of them. Here's an idea for you guys in the gun thread. Tell Vince that he isn't sincere about gun control. Just tell him he isn't really for gun control despite the fact that he is telling you that he is. That way, you won't have to actually refute any point he makes about it. I call it the "Vinceonian Defense".

Many people raise Judicial Review when they get a result they dont like.

Are the arguments that they present correct or incorrect? Oh, that's right. Doesn't matter. You can see into their souls and know that they don't really mean it.

The simple fact is MANY things are not specifically addressed inthe Coinstitution and, indeed, people on CBW's side of the fence often use that very fact to justify expansion of government, so its ironic now to hear someone like CBW object. 

There is a difference between enacting legislation based on interpretation of a vaguely stated power (like suggesting that the SNAP program is constitutional on the basis of the General Welfare Clause, or suggesting that certain New Deal provisions were constitutional on the basis of the Commerce Clause), and flat out claiming a procedural power that isn't granted in the Constitution.

Let's approach this from yet another direction. Since the power of judicial review being held by a single body is a necessity in your view, why not grant it to the Executive Branch? What if we allowed the President, or the DOJ to review the Constitutionality of laws? Give me the pros and cons of such a plan.

The very structure of our government . . . and history going back to the Magna Carta . .  makes little sense without judidical review . . .  without some entity enforcing the Constitution . .  its really just a piece of paper. The SCOTUS is far from perfect, but a system of checks and balances is always going to have tension in the boundaries, and so it has been the role of courts, going way back, to enforce the written document.

Funny you should mention that, because the concept of the courts having the power of judicial review over laws passed by Parliament has been long since abolished in the U.K. You want to know why? Because it was deemed that it granted the courts supremacy over the elected body, which contradicted the English doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#166 : July 23, 2013, 06:43:27 PM

Yawn .....you are either the loneliest human being on the plant or the most fragile ... Or both. Never seen someone go to such lengths to protect their ego. It's okay to say my comment about you was correct CBW. Good God.


Btw, I have addressed the substance and, indirectly, your fake argument in my posts to others, so saying I pointed out your actual motive to avoid the substance is beyond stupid. It's also transparent. Not wanting to waste my time conversing with you does not = "afraid" to discuss the merits ... Especially when that is precisely what I have done with others and especially when you continue to ignore my simple question
: July 23, 2013, 06:47:31 PM VinBucFan

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#167 : July 23, 2013, 07:05:37 PM

Yawn .....you are either the loneliest human being on the plant or the most fragile ... Or both. Never seen someone go to such lengths to protect their ego. It's okay to say my comment about you was correct CBW. Good God.


Btw, I have addressed the substance and, indirectly, your fake argument in my posts to others, so saying I pointed out your actual motive to avoid the substance is beyond stupid. It's also transparent. Not wanting to waste my time conversing with you does not = "afraid" to discuss the merits ... Especially when that is precisely what I have done with others and especially when you continue to ignore my simple question

Since the power of judicial review being held by a single body is a necessity for giving the Constitution meaning in your view, why not grant it to the Executive Branch? What if we allowed the President, or the DOJ to review the Constitutionality of laws? Give me the pros and cons of such a plan.
: July 23, 2013, 07:09:45 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#168 : July 23, 2013, 07:32:47 PM

No thanks

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#169 : July 23, 2013, 08:33:40 PM


It is a dumb example because it is wrong. Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence....To raise and support Armies...

The Air Force is an army that uses different vehicles than the regular army and the Constitution states "armies" PLURAL


Or is it? Ironic that Vin should bring this up, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention semi-automatic rifles, handguns or high capacity magazines either, and according to some that is proof they weren't supposed to be included.

that is an interesting example of why the judicial review argument is an interesting academic discussion, but really almost nonsense in the real world. You and JG? are discussing differing views of what the words mean. . . .

I guess the U.K. isn't in the real world.

The thing some leave out, is that constitutional challenges are generaly the result of competing parties litigating competeing interests, so someone has to be the final arbiter.

And generally, whichever party has the most Supreme Court appointees on the bench wins the arbitration.

There is a reason I asked the question above about if there need be one branch that arbitrates questions of constitutionality in order for the Constitution to have meaning, in your view, then why not grant judicial review to the Executive branch rather than the Judicial branch, Vince. People, you included,  would be opposed to such a move for two reasons.

The first, obviously, would be because it would mean that the Constitution would be interpreted along the ideological lines of whatever party held the presidency. Certain provisions in the Constitution could, and likely would, be interpreted differently from election cycle to election cycle.

The second reason would be because it would give way too much authority to the office of the Presidency, thus interrupting the flow of checks and balances that the Constitution was meant to strike between the three governing bodies.

These reasons are apparent to anyone who would answer the question honestly. What amazes me, however, is how anyone could sit here and argue that these same problems don't exist by allowing the SCOTUS to be the sole holder of such authority. Justices are appointed by partisans, for partisan reasons. No Republican president would have appointed Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to the Supreme Court, and no Democratic president would have appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. We all know good and well that this is the truth, and we all know good and well why it is.

Supreme Court Justices are just as ideologically driven as elected officials are, and side on legislation the same way in most cases. The difference is, however, if the President were the arbiter of Constitutionality, the change affected by his decisions would last only as long as he were in office, or for as long as the consent of the governed allowed them to, whereas decisions made my a majority of justices, given that they are in office for life, can affect the electorate for decades. As Thomas Jefferson said...

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Of course, according to Vince, Jefferson didn't mean it either. He was just mad about losing a case that he actually won.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#170 : July 23, 2013, 08:43:35 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#171 : July 23, 2013, 08:58:17 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#172 : July 23, 2013, 09:11:18 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#173 : July 23, 2013, 09:13:37 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

Your ego prevents you from simply not responding. He....can't....help....it!


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#174 : July 23, 2013, 09:49:39 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

Your ego prevents you from simply not responding. He....can't....help....it!

My desire to laugh keeps me from not responding.  CBW, you're so upset you've been posting back and forth with yourself.  Keep going please

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#175 : July 23, 2013, 10:00:04 PM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

Your ego prevents you from simply not responding. He....can't....help....it!

My desire to laugh keeps me from not responding.  CBW, you're so upset you've been posting back and forth with yourself.  Keep going please

You're right. I'm posting back and forth with myself. I guess I wrote this quote that I'm responding to right now. He....can't....help....it!


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#176 : July 23, 2013, 10:12:57 PM


It is a dumb example because it is wrong. Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence....To raise and support Armies...

The Air Force is an army that uses different vehicles than the regular army and the Constitution states "armies" PLURAL


Or is it? Ironic that Vin should bring this up, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention semi-automatic rifles, handguns or high capacity magazines either, and according to some that is proof they weren't supposed to be included.

that is an interesting example of why the judicial review argument is an interesting academic discussion, but really almost nonsense in the real world. You and JG? are discussing differing views of what the words mean. . . .

I guess the U.K. isn't in the real world.

The thing some leave out, is that constitutional challenges are generaly the result of competing parties litigating competeing interests, so someone has to be the final arbiter.

And generally, whichever party has the most Supreme Court appointees on the bench wins the arbitration.

There is a reason I asked the question above about if there need be one branch that arbitrates questions of constitutionality in order for the Constitution to have meaning, in your view, then why not grant judicial review to the Executive branch rather than the Judicial branch, Vince. People, you included,  would be opposed to such a move for two reasons.

The first, obviously, would be because it would mean that the Constitution would be interpreted along the ideological lines of whatever party held the presidency. Certain provisions in the Constitution could, and likely would, be interpreted differently from election cycle to election cycle.

The second reason would be because it would give way too much authority to the office of the Presidency, thus interrupting the flow of checks and balances that the Constitution was meant to strike between the three governing bodies.

These reasons are apparent to anyone who would answer the question honestly. What amazes me, however, is how anyone could sit here and argue that these same problems don't exist by allowing the SCOTUS to be the sole holder of such authority. Justices are appointed by partisans, for partisan reasons. No Republican president would have appointed Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to the Supreme Court, and no Democratic president would have appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. We all know good and well that this is the truth, and we all know good and well why it is.

Supreme Court Justices are just as ideologically driven as elected officials are, and side on legislation the same way in most cases. The difference is, however, if the President were the arbiter of Constitutionality, the change affected by his decisions would last only as long as he were in office, or for as long as the consent of the governed allowed them to, whereas decisions made my a majority of justices, given that they are in office for life, can affect the electorate for decades. As Thomas Jefferson said...

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Of course, according to Vince, Jefferson didn't mean it either. He was just mad about losing a case that he actually won.

 ;D

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#177 : July 23, 2013, 10:31:55 PM

Thanks for re-posting it. It makes you look even more foolish the second time.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17630
Online
#178 : July 23, 2013, 10:36:39 PM

Thanks for re-posting it. It makes you look even more foolish the second time.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

lol

1. you carry on a conversation with yourself
2. I say you carry on a conversation with yourself
3. you deny it (as if humans cant read-lol)
I4. I quote you carrying on a conversation with yourself

yeah . . . I am the one that looks foolish . . ???

btw, you could carry on that conversation with yourself, but not find a quote where you raised judicial review before this case, right? You could carry on that conversation with yourself but not answer that simple question I threw out pages ago, right?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#179 : July 23, 2013, 10:43:16 PM

Thanks for re-posting it. It makes you look even more foolish the second time.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

lol

1. you carry on a conversation with yourself
2. I say you carry on a conversation with yourself
3. you deny it (as if humans cant read-lol)
I4. I quote you carrying on a conversation with yourself

yeah . . . I am the one that looks foolish . . ???

btw, you could carry on that conversation with yourself, but not find a quote where you raised judicial review before this case, right? You could carry on that conversation with yourself but not answer that simple question I threw out pages ago, right?

I'm not talking to you. You should stop carrying on a conversation with yourself.

Page: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools