guns

[newfie]

So if a Justice has ruled in a death penalty case they cannot rule in another because they obviously have bias?

a better example may be if they had sentenced someone to the death penalty.

 

[bbsam]

a better example may be if they had sentenced someone to the death penalty.

Why? Previous rulings are indicative of bias, aren't they?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

According to Baba's logic, if they did own guns, they would need to recuse themselves from ruling on it because they would have bias.

Nope. The right to own guns is a clearly, SPECIFICALLY, spelled out in The Constitution. Marriage is not. Again.......SCOTUS should have deferred to The Tenth Amendment.

 

[Babagounj]

So if a Justice has ruled in a death penalty case they cannot rule in another because they obviously have bias?

Talk about reaching for straws .

 

[newfie]

Why? Previous rulings are indicative of bias, aren't they?

action that clearly shows their bias. The Supreme court is rife with bias and has now denigrated from interpreting law to making law.

 

[bbsam]

Talk about reaching for straws .

Do Eric and Chad have a bias? Do you and i? Scalia and Ginsburg?

 

[bbsam]

action that clearly shows their bias. The Supreme court is rife with bias and has now denigrated from interpreting law to making law.

So you would do away with a Constitutionally created branch of the government?

 

[newfie]

So you would do away with a Constitutionally created branch of the government?

at first blush no, but then you almost need some oversight of the supreme court if they are now going to act as the legislative branch.

 

[bbsam]

at first blush no, but then you almost need some oversight of the supreme court if they are now going to act as the legislative branch.

Justices can be impeached, can't they? And there is legislative oversight in rewriting and passing laws that the SC finds unconstitutional. That would require both parties to work together so if it seems the court is overstepping it's limits, that may simply be the result of a dysfunctional congress.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

at first blush no, but then you almost need some oversight of the supreme court if they are now going to act as the legislative branch.

And that right there is the real problem. They are acting as legislators by using their biased opinions to circumvent The Constitution. Liberals keep mentioning guns and gay marriage together as if there is any correlation between the decisions when there is not. One is specifically spelled out in The Constitution. One is not. They flat out refuse to acknowledge that fact.

 

[bbsam]

And that right there is the real problem. They are acting as legislators by using their biased opinions to circumvent The Constitution. Liberals keep mentioning guns and gay marriage together as if there is any correlation between the decisions when there is not. One is specifically spelled out in The Constitution. One is not. They flat out refuse to acknowledge that fact.

When the legislative branch starts to do it's job again, that will sort itself out.

 

[rod]

When the legislative branch starts to do it's job again, that will sort itself out.

I don't see that happening any time soon

 

[bbsam]

I don't see that happening any time soon

True. That's not the Supreme Court'system fault.

 

[oldngray]

If the legislative isn't passing the laws some people want it doesn't give the judicial the right to legislate from the bench or the executive to create new laws by executive order. Separation of powers still exists.

 

[bbsam]

If the legislative isn't passing the laws some people want it doesn't give the judicial the right to legislate from the bench or the executive to create new laws by executive order. Separation of powers still exists.

The judicial doesn't "legislate from the bench". They decided the constitutionality of laws, allowing some and striking down others. If the legislative bodies don't like it, they can amend the law to fit the court'system guidelines.

Why do you want to give the legislature a pass on being crap?

 

[oldngray]

The judicial doesn't "legislate from the bench". They decided the constitutionality of laws, allowing some and striking down others. If the legislative bodies don't like it, they can amend the law to fit the court'system guidelines.

Why do you want to give the legislature a pass on being crap?

Who said I was giving the legislature a pass? All I said was other branches had no right to usurp legislative power. How well the legislature is doing its job makes no difference. The people have the right to vote in new people the next election.

 

[bbsam]

Who said I was giving the legislature a pass? All I said was other branches had no right to usurp legislative power. How well the legislature is doing its job makes no difference. The people have the right to vote in new people the next election.

But you can't blame the court for the legislature not doing its job. By choosing not to do their job, congress leaving that void, that's what you are calling "legislating from the bench".

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Talk about reaching for straws .

You suggested if a judge had married a gay couple in a state where the marriage was legal, then they should recuse themselves from ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage because they are biased.

That is grasping at straws.

 

[newfie]

When the legislative branch starts to do it's job again, that will sort itself out.

even if they don't agree with what the legislative branch puts out?

 

[newfie]

True. That's not the Supreme Court'system fault.

give yourself a troll label.