I see HCM beat me to it.Originally Posted by HCM
I see HCM beat me to it.
Sig line material, sir.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
Y’all might want to go back and read Madison and Jefferson’s letters re: Marbury v. Madison 1803.
It is VERY CLEAR that the Founding Fathers intended for the judicial branch to exercise some leeway over the interpretation of the law. That is both a reflection of the British tradition they came up in AND in their writing post ratification of the Constitution and establishment of the high court.
I’ve got other shit to deal with today than debate the finer points of this. But bear in mind what you guys are arguing for - the supremacy of the US Constitution was not validated until the process of judicial review was cemented in Marbury v. Madison. The very case that the justices took such legal leeway with was done in the name of establishing supremacy of the Constitution AND in allowing judicial review that requires legal interpretation. You literally, in our history, cannot have one without the other.
To argue that the founders were not aware of this is fallacious - they were very aware. They deliberately left Article III vague, because they could only agree that courts were needed and that they would serve to review cases and law. They could not otherwise agree on what structures should exist. They were very aware that establishment of a judicial branch was not only novel, but would require flexibility in its construction and use. Bear in mind during this time and still today, many courts globally are royal courts, not courts that have equality as a major branch of a governance system.
I think we’re talking past each other. I wasn’t arguing that courts weren’t envisioned by the Constitution. See Article III. Which I’ve read - see my signature line.Somebody has to decide whether I can pay you in pennies. The question is whether the courts are “staying in their lane” when they say I can get out of our contract regardless of what our intent was because guns are icky.
I'm not only arguing the courts were envisioned, that is completely clear. I'm saying that the Founders also clearly intended for courts to hold judicial review to settle legal matters. That includes contractual law like you are describing and review of State and Federal laws that was ultimately established in Marbury v. Madison, that established the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land in terms of legal precedent.I think we’re talking past each other. I wasn’t arguing that courts weren’t envisioned by the Constitution. See Article III. Which I’ve read - see my signature line.
Since the Founders did not provide the contextual identity of the "lane" it's hard to say what is outside of it or inside of it. One can argue that since neither Madison nor Jefferson nor any other Founder moved to introduce an Amendment that would specifically limit SCOTUS powers post Marbury v. Madison that they were content to see the Supreme Court function a broad arbiter of the what was or was not Constitutional, once it was law. Since we use a justiciable standard for determining when suit can be made, I would argue it is quite a robust system.The question is whether the courts are “staying in their lane” when they say I can get out of our contract regardless of what our intent was because guns are icky.
An activist judge here or there exists - this is true, but they are not par for the course and most frequently their case law is struck down on appeal. Some, myself included, would argue that is the inherent price of our judicial system. The power it has to function as a check and balance to both legislative and executive power is worth that issue.
___
Moving back to RBG - Y'all better hope she keeps living. If she kicks the bucket, it will not only be a free-for-fucking-all in Congress for SCOTUS nominations. But I can guarantee you that the day Trump rolls on out of office, be it 2020 or 2024 - and Congress is aligned party wise with the President the first thing that will come out for a vote will be the Judiciary Act of 2020 or 2024. Which will expand the size of the Supreme Court to 10 or worse following FDR's proposal, 15 positions.
If you want a packed court, RBG dying and another Republican nominee will generate a packed court.
Who says the Dems wouldn't try to pack the court anyways?
Most certainly.
It was certainly the case during the Obama admin; no reason to expect that it won't happen again with or without RBG's departure/passing.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
I would be surprised if they didn’t try to pack the court regardless of what happens. The recent thinly veiled threats toward the court by some Democrat congresspeople lead me to believe that’s what they’re planning to do anyway.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
I think neither side can expect any mercy from the other, and that each will seek to push to the nth degree any advantage they can exploit.
The days of bipartisanship and compromise are seemingly behind us.
There's nothing civil about this war.
And we are all the poorer for it.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Reply With Quote