Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: dawnstar
Judges are there to determine if what has happened in lower courts is Constitutional or not.

You're referring to the Justices of the Supreme Court?

Not just "Judges" ... right?

a reply to: dawnstar

Nooo, they review cases from lower courts that have already ruled. They don't just get cases delivered directly to them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In that statement, yes.


As a whole, Judges are there to not create or rewrite law, but to rule on what is put forth.

a reply to: stevieray

it doesn't but if the rest of the modern world sees executing kids as being inhumane, and my heart tells me it's it, as well as a big enough percentage of the american people, well then I might just decide that executing kids is cruel and inhumane and thus not constitutional!

a reply to: dawnstar

The process to create the laws which define such things is not within the confines of the judicial branch.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: stevieray

it doesn't but if the rest of the modern world sees executing kids as being inhumane, and my heart tells me it's it, as well as a big enough percentage of the american people, well then I might just decide that executing kids is cruel and inhumane and thus not constitutional!

Problem is that liberal interpretations of everything usually veer far, far from reality. 6'2" 180# Trayvon Martin is no longer a kid when he bashes a guy's head against the sidewalk. 6'4" 300# Michael Brown is no longer a kid when he tosses a shop owner around his shop while taking his stuff....and then goes looking for a cop to manhandle and shoot.
Giving these guys eternal child status because you've been served up a helping of their 12-year-old Easter / Pop Warner photos....is dangerous.

NTM that the constitution does not reside in your heart. It is what it is, and what is written, nowhere near your heart, having nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

In that statement, yes.


As a whole, Judges are there to not create or rewrite law, but to rule on what is put forth.

lol, yeah, especially not to re-interpret & redefine what was written in order to breathe life into an unconstitutional socialist healthcare scam. Just to enable socialism. Not really "judging the application of a law as written".

a reply to: macman

name me one law that the supreme court has written? tell me please, why has so many court cases gone to the supreme court over obama care? is it not that some people have challenged the many aspects of the law itself? when do the expect the federal courts to do? do they not expect them to find something about the law that makes it unconstitutional? okay, they found that the mandate for birth control was unconstitutional. that they didn't rewrite those laws to correct the problem is probably self evident in the fact the danged law probably hasn't been rewritten as of now. no, they suggested changes that could be made to correct the problem.
it is in their constitutional authority to do this, or at least it has been accepted as being for for many many years.

a reply to: dawnstar

Semantics versus what....

When Roberts offered up, not to strike down an Unconstitutional law, but to re-write a law or how to re-write a law is the issue.

Accepted or not....it is wrong.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: macman

name me one law that the supreme court has written? tell me please, why has so many court cases gone to the supreme court over obama care? is it not that some people have challenged the many aspects of the law itself? when do the expect the federal courts to do? do they not expect them to find something about the law that makes it unconstitutional? okay, they found that the mandate for birth control was unconstitutional. that they didn't rewrite those laws to correct the problem is probably self evident in the fact the danged law probably hasn't been rewritten as of now. no, they suggested changes that could be made to correct the problem.
it is in their constitutional authority to do this, or at least it has been accepted as being for for many many years.

Here you go, read and learn.......

Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and “remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”


www.forbes.com...

John Roberts re-wrote Obamacare law for Obama, calling the penalty / mandate not "not a penalty but a tax" after Obama's people declared it wasn't a tax to get it through the vote.

Constitutional is not defined as "accepted for many many years". lol that's outrageous. It either is or isn't.

a reply to: dawnstar

"Legislating from the bench" is political vernacular for "I don't agree with the decision and I still want to complain years after things have been settled."

Whining and crying all round today.

Didn't the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank) develop the legal philosophy behind the "Individual Mandate"?

Wasn't the "Individual Mandate" part and parcel of every Republican "Health Care Plan" [sic] put forth in the last two or three decades?

Legislating from the bench is actually what it says, rewriting / re-imaging laws to benefit one social movement or another.

Which is exactly what Roberts did for Obamacare.

It's not simply differing opinions or disagreeing. Egad, what an embarrassing claim.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Didn't the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank) develop the legal philosophy behind the "Individual Mandate"?

Wasn't the "Individual Mandate" part and parcel of every Republican "Health Care Plan" [sic] put forth in the last two or three decades?

Has nothing to do with the Obamacare case as it appeared in front of the SC.

Let's not deliberately muddy the water, just to try and win an internet argument.

"Legislating from the bench" is a literal impossibility. It is the worst example of partisan rhetoric run amok.

Nothing happens "from the bench" unless it is a matter brought before a Court by or involving American citizens ... one may remember in Amendment I, the part about "redress of grievances" ... yeah, this is how that works.

Courts do not issue "Proclamations" out of thin air.

They decide on the merits of a case brought before them.

Working as intended. If it isn't, it gets fixed by another level of jurisprudence.

a reply to: stevieray

Did the matter brought before the SCOTUS regard the "individual mandate" or not?

I'd love to see the water pollution here ended.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The "Think Tank" did create the idea, but didn't press it for implementation.
That is what Think Tanks do.

Same thing that the asymmetrical warfare think tanks do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Arguing something doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

When a Court is the last word on an issue, they have the ability to legislate from the bench.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

The "Think Tank" did create the idea, but didn't press it for implementation.
That is what Think Tanks do.

Same thing that the asymmetrical warfare think tanks do.

Not quite correct ...

Senate Bill S 1770 aka "‘‘Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993’’

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING COVERAGE.—

15 (2) INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.—The Secretary
16 shall specifically make recommendations under para-
17 graph (1) regarding establishing a requirement that
18 all eligible individuals obtain health coverage
19 through enrollment with a qualified health plan.

You'll find that around page 238.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Arguing something doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

When a Court is the last word on an issue, they have the ability to legislate from the bench.

But arguing that a thing does exist does make it so? Hello logic.

A Court only speaks to what is brought before it. Courts do interpret the law, yes. That's the definition of jurisprudence.

But that is not "law making." They do not originate law. It's a spurious, propagandized phrase.