BREAKING: President Trump’s Pick for SUPREME COURT Has Just Been Revealed… Meet Neil Gorsuch

[Cyber Liberty]

Don't talk Jazz! Prove me wrong by showing me exactly where that duty is conferred on the court by the Constitution!

Do that and the argument is forever over!

I predict he'll argue it's conferred on the court by, what is it, Marbury v Madison (?), which sounds a lot like the court conferred it upon itself.  If the argument sounds circular, it should sound familiar.

[Bigun]

That's a funny thing to say, not laughing at anyone.

Just like most everything else he says it's funny because he has NO idea what is actually in a dirigible!

[Bigun]

I predict he'll argue it's conferred on the court by, what is it, Marbury v Madison (?), which sounds a lot like the court conferred it upon itself.  If the argument sounds circular, it should sound familiar.

 

I wouldn't touch that bet with YOUR money!

[Jazzhead]

Don't talk Jazz! Prove me wrong by showing me exactly where that duty is conferred on the court by the Constitution!

Do that and the argument is forever over!

Article III of the Constitution.  It empowers the Court with "appellate jurisdiction", as to both "Law and Fact", over matters within its jurisdiction.

That means it can interpret the Constitution,  and authoritatively so.   

[txradioguy]

Article III of the Constitution.  It empowers the Court with "appellate jurisdiction", as to both "Law and Fact", over matters within its jurisdiction.

That means it can interpret the Constitution,  and authoritatively so.

It must be in the fine print...Because nothing in Article III says anything about interpretation.

That is an illogical leap you made on your own.

[Bigun]

Article III of the Constitution.  It empowers the Court with "appellate jurisdiction", as to both "Law and Fact", over matters within its jurisdiction.

That means it can interpret the Constitution,  and authoritatively so.

YOU are completely NUTS and I'm done with you!   

[INVAR]

Article III of the Constitution.  It empowers the Court with "appellate jurisdiction", as to both "Law and Fact", over matters within its jurisdiction.

That means it can interpret the Constitution,  and authoritatively so.

And so 9 Justices in black robes can decide to interpret the Constitution to mean that blacks are only 3/5ths a person and therefore ineligible to vote or that it also impels all White Southern Conservative males to pay 95% of their income for reparations for Slavery and that is Authoritative Constitutional Law according to your imbecillic and idiotic reasoning.

"Law and Fact" has become whatever they decide the law and the facts are.  Something you applaud with great vigor.

[txradioguy]

Article III of the Constitution.  It empowers the Court with "appellate jurisdiction", as to both "Law and Fact", over matters within its jurisdiction.

That means it can interpret the Constitution,  and authoritatively so.

Interpretation means judicial activism...And according to you on several occasions judicial activism is bad.

So which is it?  Is judicial activism good or bad?

Or is it only good when it supports your particular brand of Liberalism.

[Cyber Liberty]

And so 9 Justices in black robes can decide to interpret the Constitution to mean that blacks are only 3/5ths a person and therefore ineligible to vote or that it also impels all White Southern Conservative males to pay 95% of their income for reparations for Slavery and that is Authoritative Constitutional Law according to your imbecillic and idiotic reasoning.

"Law and Fact" has become whatever they decide the law and the facts are.  Something you applaud with great vigor.

And this is why people don't trust the courts.  It's not because they don't like the decisions, although that is an end result when any governmental entity arrogates that much power to itself.  It's because court is a crapshoot, who knows what a Judge will do on any given day when judges and lawyers can twist the meaning of plain words into whatever pretzel they like.

[Bigun]

I wonder what someone here would say about  James Madison's statement that the accumulation of all government power in the same hands is the very definition of tyrany.

[bigheadfred]

And this is why people don't trust the courts.  It's not because they don't like the decisions, although that is an end result when any governmental entity arrogates that much power to itself.  It's because court is a crapshoot, who knows what a Judge will do on any given day when judges and lawyers can twist the meaning of plain words into whatever pretzel they like.

That's why they call it "practicing" law.

[Jazzhead]

YOU are completely NUTS and I'm done with you!   

Got you, dead to rights, bigun.

"Appellate jurisdiction" as to the "Law" means the authority to interpret the law and apply it to a set of facts.  Appellate jurisdiction refers to the Court's authority to pass judgement on decisions rendered by prior courts.  The ability to pass judgment as to both "Law and Facts" reinforces the Founders' intent to empower the court to determine the correctness of a prior decision in all respects, including its application of the law. 

Do that and the argument is forever over

And so it is.

[Bigun]

That's why they call it "practicing" law.

Lol! Quite true Fred! 

[bigheadfred]

I wonder what someone here would think James Madison's statement that the accumulation of all government power in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny might mean.

It means "Why ain't you out pickin' cotton?" But that's just me.

[Bigun]

Self delusion is a TERRIBLE disease!

[Jazzhead]

Interpretation means judicial activism...And according to you on several occasions judicial activism is bad.

So which is it?  Is judicial activism good or bad?

Or is it only good when it supports your particular brand of Liberalism.

Interpretation means interpretation.    Construction and application of the law to a set of facts. 

[Jazzhead]

Self delusion is a TERRIBLE disease!

A self diagnosis, I see.   Bravo, bigun,  now we're making progress.   

[txradioguy]

Interpretation means interpretation.    Construction and application of the law to a set of facts.

Doesn't answer the question I asked you.

You have argued for and against judicial activism when it suits your purpose.

Why the double standard?

I'm just trying to get you to tell me when we're supposed to believe activism is good and when its bad.

[Bigun]

Hopefully someone her will explain the first rule of holes to our friend from Pennsylvania.  I have no more time for him.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hopefully someone her will explain the first rule of holes to our friend from Pennsylvania.  I have no more time for him.

Not me, dude!  I ain't starting a chess game with a pigeon tonight.

[Bigun]

Not me, dude!  I ain't starting a chess game with a pigeon tonight.

ROFLMAO!!!  Have fun! 

[bigheadfred]

Doesn't answer the question I asked you.

You have argued for and against judicial activism when it suits your purpose.

Why the double standard?

I'm just trying to get you to tell me when we're supposed to believe activism is good and when its bad.

It is good when the court is using "your" set of facts, and bad when they are using "their" set of facts.

[Wingnut]

Hopefully someone her will explain the first rule of holes to our friend from Pennsylvania.  I have no more time for him.

Wise man.

I'm still trying to fill my dirigible with hot air.  I can't see Damn thing in there.   Could someone lend me a match and hold my beer.

[bigheadfred]

Hopefully someone her will explain the first rule of holes to our friend from Pennsylvania.  I have no more time for him.

All I know about holes is that when the sky looks like this you win.

[Bigun]

Wise man.

I'm still trying to fill my dirigible with hot air.  I can't see Damn thing in there.   Could someone lend me a match and hold my beer.

DAMN IT! You guys are KILLIN me tonight!