RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Discussion
vetrof said:
Maybe the case. But I was under the impression that laws were made by the legislature, the elected representatives of the people.
And if tested, the court decided if the law was in accordance with the constitution or not. I could be wrong of course, but it seems odd that 9 unelected people should be able to make the laws.
edit: I am neither American nor involved in the legal profession (can you tell?), so perhaps I have too simplistic a view on this.
Two points -And if tested, the court decided if the law was in accordance with the constitution or not. I could be wrong of course, but it seems odd that 9 unelected people should be able to make the laws.
edit: I am neither American nor involved in the legal profession (can you tell?), so perhaps I have too simplistic a view on this.
(1) The US Constitution balances the powers of the executive and the legislature and has those powers supervised by the Supreme Court. The executive is not allowed to act, and the legislature is not allowed to legislate, in a way that breaches the Constitution, including its many Amendments. In legal theory, the Constitution is a "grundnorm". It is the Rule of Rules, by which all other rules are judged. The question of what does or does not breach the Constitution is often a difficult one, and into that question politics (and religion) can enter.
(2) The US adopted the common law system from the UK. The common law system recognises that no legal Code can cover all eventualities, and permits the law to be changed incrementally by Judges. Thus Judges in all common law countries do make law. They do this by interpreting previous common law decisions, and by interpreting Statutes. In common law countries that have Constitutions contained in a single document, the Judges also interpret that document. In the UK, by the way, the Constitution is scattered across several documents dating from the twelfth century to last year, but is also partly contained in case law and in non-binding conventions.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th October 12:12
Comparative Constitutionalism 101:
I add that the EU legal order is a mixture of the Civil Code that is standard in most European countries, and the common law. The European Court of Justice is pretty much a common law Court, because it generally stands by its previous decisions, but does develop the law of the EU incrementally. It is the final arbiter of what EU law is. It can strike down instruments of national legislatures and of the EU legislature if those instruments breach the Treaties that make up the Constitution of the EU. The ECJ is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU Court.
Like SCOTUS, the ECJ is a Court that suffers from politics, but it does so in a different way. It is weakened by the rule that it must decide every single case unanimously. Thus every decision tends to be heavily negotiated, compromised, and often small c conservative.
The ECtHR allows dissenting judgments. It is more common law than Civil Code, because the European Convention of Human Rights was mainly written by a British common lawyer (he was also a Tory politician - the Daily Mail does not want people to know that).
BACK on thread - Barrett ducked a lot of questions. She is not a full-on stooge in the same mould as the truly appalling Kavanaugh, but she is there for one reason only and that is to kill Roe v Wade. Not a great basis on which to appoint a Justice.
I add that the EU legal order is a mixture of the Civil Code that is standard in most European countries, and the common law. The European Court of Justice is pretty much a common law Court, because it generally stands by its previous decisions, but does develop the law of the EU incrementally. It is the final arbiter of what EU law is. It can strike down instruments of national legislatures and of the EU legislature if those instruments breach the Treaties that make up the Constitution of the EU. The ECJ is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU Court.
Like SCOTUS, the ECJ is a Court that suffers from politics, but it does so in a different way. It is weakened by the rule that it must decide every single case unanimously. Thus every decision tends to be heavily negotiated, compromised, and often small c conservative.
The ECtHR allows dissenting judgments. It is more common law than Civil Code, because the European Convention of Human Rights was mainly written by a British common lawyer (he was also a Tory politician - the Daily Mail does not want people to know that).
BACK on thread - Barrett ducked a lot of questions. She is not a full-on stooge in the same mould as the truly appalling Kavanaugh, but she is there for one reason only and that is to kill Roe v Wade. Not a great basis on which to appoint a Justice.
havoc said:
I've seen similar opinion from reasonably unbiased sources. Looks like a probable scenario.
Looking unlikely even CNN have started to turn against the Democrats! I might be wrong, from what I have seen Biden is not coming across well, he and trump in interviews etc neither have polish and often say bizarre things.
have you seen the interview they are blocking trillions in support?
Also if you look at the Democrat controlled states they don't paint a very positive picture .
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/14/politics/nancy-...
Your loyalty to the orange one is touching, and he might still win, but the odds are not looking great, despite all that straw-clutching spin that you just did. HMG has apparently started prepping to deal with Biden, who will hang tough on Northern Ireland, and on trade. Biden is no great shakes, but he is a billion times better than the alternative.
Breadvan72 said:
Your loyalty to the orange one is touching, and he might still win, but the odds are not looking great, despite all that straw-clutching spin that you just did. HMG has apparently started prepping to deal with Biden, who will hang tough on Northern Ireland, and on trade. Biden is no great shakes, but he is a billion times better than the alternative.
Clearly you like Biden and is definitely showing signs of his age! Got confused at a recently rally and said he was running for Congress lol!Other than the fact trump goes against the grain, is there anything he has done in America that has really upset you.
A lot of people seem to hate trump and he doesn't do himself favours at time but there is a lot of fake news about him.
I speak to some people and they just hate him, but can't explain why.
You did avoid the Stimulus Issue, the Democrat's appear to be blocking money to help struggling Americans because they hate trump!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 15th October 12:33
surveyor 1010, I am no fan of Biden. It reflects poorly on the Dems that he is the candidate they chose, but a second Trump term would be a disaster for the whole World. If you really cannot see what terrible harm Trump has done to the US and to the World, I really do not have time to educate you on that. In any event, you show by every post you make on a political subject that you are ill-informed, highly credulous of populist nonsense, and unable or unwilling to use the critical reasoning skills that are required to form informed opinions. Somebody else can maybe try to enlighten you, but for me life is too short. I can only suggest that you stop regarding what UK tabloids, US Fox News et al, and social media tell you as being in any way connected to reality. None of those media sources are your friends, and they lead you and many others up a very dodgy garden path.
Breadvan72 said:
surveyor 1010, I am no fan of Biden. It reflects poorly on the Dems that he is the candidate they chose, but a second Trump term would be a disaster for the whole World. If you really cannot see what terrible harm Trump has done to the US and to the World, I really do not have time to educate you on that. In any event, you show by every post you make on a political subject that you are ill-informed, highly credulous of populist nonsense, and unable or unwilling to use the critical reasoning skills that are required to form informed opinions. Somebody else can maybe try to enlighten you, but for me life is too short. I can only suggest that you stop regarding what UK tabloids, US Fox News et al, and social media tell you as being in any way connected to reality. None of those media sources are your friends, and they lead you and many others up a very dodgy garden path.
We can agree on two points Biden reflects badly on the dems and Trump is not the ideal person for presidency.You say life is too short but comment on a large number of my posts.
I invited you to comment on the Stimulus Package in particular but you have ignored.
You have ranted about Trump being bad for the world and I hear that a lot without any points, I also heard in the 2016 election that and he would start wars etc, etc but he has not gone to war with one country!
Breadvan72 said:
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
What evidence do you have of this? I can’t find any and none has been evidenced at her hearings. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean someone is required to deny their own religious conscience. Just that they must set it aside In deciding constitutional matters. She’s promised to do that. There is no evidence she has ever acted differently.
On Roe vs Wade she is on record as saying it is now settled law in the US. Outside of the religious right, the main objection to Roe was a question of States rights. Many mainstream constitutional lawyers believe it overstepped the powers of the court.
Anyway, you clearly had a very negative view of ACB before the hearings. Have you changed your mind?
pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
What evidence do you have of this? I can’t find any and none has been evidenced at her hearings. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean someone is required to deny their own religious conscience. Just that they must set it aside In deciding constitutional matters. She’s promised to do that. There is no evidence she has ever acted differently.
On Roe vs Wade she is on record as saying it is now settled law in the US. Outside of the religious right, the main objection to Roe was a question of States rights. Many mainstream constitutional lawyers believe it overstepped the powers of the court.
Anyway, you clearly had a very negative view of ACB before the hearings. Have you changed your mind?
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
Lord.Vader said:
Didn’t she sign, whilst a professor, something to do with overturning R vs W?
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
There is nothing in the constitution that limits the number of justices, that is set by congress and if they vote for it, the SC could be expanded to any number they wish.Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
Lord.Vader said:
Didn’t she sign, whilst a professor, something to do with overturning R vs W?
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
As a private citizen she is entitled to her own views and to advocate for them. As a judge she must remain neutral.
There’s no evidence she hasn’t been able to reconcile those positions and given the amount of time and effort that has gone into finding the smoking gun if there was, we would have heard about it.
What I hear is the Dems have decided to go easy. This could easily backfire. She’s getting confirmed.
Breadvan72 said:
Your loyalty to the orange one is touching, and he might still win, but the odds are not looking great, despite all that straw-clutching spin that you just did. HMG has apparently started prepping to deal with Biden, who will hang tough on Northern Ireland, and on trade. Biden is no great shakes, but he is a billion times better than the alternative.
don't forget the odds for HRC to win 2016 was 90 to 95%.the only way for Biden to win is blatantly cheat. and they aren't shy about it.
Bozwell said:
Breadvan72 said:
Your loyalty to the orange one is touching, and he might still win, but the odds are not looking great, despite all that straw-clutching spin that you just did. HMG has apparently started prepping to deal with Biden, who will hang tough on Northern Ireland, and on trade. Biden is no great shakes, but he is a billion times better than the alternative.
don't forget the odds for HRC to win 2016 was 90 to 95%.the only way for Biden to win is blatantly cheat. and they aren't shy about it.
Same party is putting unlawful drop boxes in California.
pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
What evidence do you have of this? I can’t find any and none has been evidenced at her hearings. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean someone is required to deny their own religious conscience. Just that they must set it aside In deciding constitutional matters. She’s promised to do that. There is no evidence she has ever acted differently.
On Roe vs Wade she is on record as saying it is now settled law in the US. Outside of the religious right, the main objection to Roe was a question of States rights. Many mainstream constitutional lawyers believe it overstepped the powers of the court.
Anyway, you clearly had a very negative view of ACB before the hearings. Have you changed your mind?
Try the NY Times summary from last week maybe -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/amy...
Try CBS -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-vie...
How about the Christian Science Monitor -
“If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it would represent a culmination of decades long efforts by the conservative Christian legal movement to move from the periphery of the legal world into the mainstream.”
One more:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-amy-cone...
But you "couldn't find" any evidence. Oh yes, sure you couldn't.
This is a woman who has acted as a "handmaid", I kid you not, in one of her religious organisations. Her evasiveness when pressed on the key issues was striking. If you believe that she will not vote with her entrenched religious convictions, I have a bridge to sell you.
But who needs evidence? Faith is faith, and faith in Trump is one of the biggest cults going.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th October 04:58
Breadvan72 said:
The evidence that Barrett is influenced by her religion is abundant, and if you say that you haven't found any such evidence, you have perhaps been searching using an early 1820s version of the internet
Try the NY Times summary from last week maybe -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/amy...
Try CBS -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-vie...
How about the Christian Science Monitor -
“If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it would represent a culmination of decades long efforts by the conservative Christian legal movement to move from the periphery of the legal world into the mainstream.”
One more:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-amy-cone...
But you "couldn't find" any evidence. Oh yes, sure you couldn't.
This is a woman who has acted as a "handmaid", I kid you not, in one of her religious organisations. Her evasiveness when pressed on the key issues was striking. If you believe that she will not vote with her entrenched religious convictions, I have a bridge to sell you.
But who needs evidence? Faith is faith, and faith in Trump is one of the biggest cults going.
Do you think her religious beliefs mean she should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? Would you have the same view if she was a committed Muslim? Try the NY Times summary from last week maybe -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/amy...
Try CBS -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-vie...
How about the Christian Science Monitor -
“If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it would represent a culmination of decades long efforts by the conservative Christian legal movement to move from the periphery of the legal world into the mainstream.”
One more:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-amy-cone...
But you "couldn't find" any evidence. Oh yes, sure you couldn't.
This is a woman who has acted as a "handmaid", I kid you not, in one of her religious organisations. Her evasiveness when pressed on the key issues was striking. If you believe that she will not vote with her entrenched religious convictions, I have a bridge to sell you.
But who needs evidence? Faith is faith, and faith in Trump is one of the biggest cults going.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 18th October 04:58
The fact is R v W is likely to be overturned. It was always a case which stretched the power of the court bejond it legal boundaries.
kowalski655 said:
When her religious views get precedence over the law,as per BV's links, then that is wrong.
From what I've seen she is t even that experienced a judge, asked to name 10 significant cases she had argued, could list only 3! Her sole qualifications seem to be tits and the "right" belief
The press and the Dems seem to be making a lot of her Christian religious beliefs. I just wonder if they would do the same if she was a devout Muslim.From what I've seen she is t even that experienced a judge, asked to name 10 significant cases she had argued, could list only 3! Her sole qualifications seem to be tits and the "right" belief
As for her qualifications. She has not argued many cases because she is largely an academic lawyer. Her record as an academic lawyer specialising in constitutional law is outstanding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff