The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The Weird Odyssey of Trump's Travel Bans
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The weird odyssey of President Donald Trump’s travel bans continues. The original ban, signed as an executive order Jan. 27, barred absolutely all immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The countries had actually been chosen by the State Department of former President Barack Obama. Obama never signed a ban, but Trump did.

The first travel ban never took effect, as the federal courts in Brooklyn, Seattle and Honolulu in which it was challenged by people from the affected countries who had visas to enter the United States enjoined it almost immediately. When the Department of Justice challenged those injunctions, it lost. The basis for the judicial invalidations of the first ban was that it constituted a government decision based on religion.

Since the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect everyone — not just citizens — and since the seven countries designated by the Obama and Trump State departments and barred under Trump’s executive order were predominantly Muslim, and since candidate Trump had made very harsh anti-Muslim comments during the campaign, the courts ruled that the travel ban was actually a Muslim ban and thus was unconstitutional.

Before the DOJ could appeal its losses to the Supreme Court, President Trump signed a second travel ban March 6. It rescinded the original ban and articulated a national security and geographic basis for barring entry from six countries (eliminating Iraq). It, too, was challenged in the same federal courts as the first ban, and it suffered the same fate for the same reasons. This second ban reached the Supreme Court, which, by a 6-3 vote, invalidated the injunctions imposed by lower-court judges against it but carved out an exemption from the ban.

The carve-out exempted from the ban all refugees and immigrants from the designated countries who have “bona fide relationships” here in the United States. The dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court has no business rewriting a presidential executive order and observed that the language in the carve-out — bona fide relationships — is vague and could spawn litigation over its meaning.

When the Department of Homeland Security defined “bona fide relationships” to include in-laws but not cousins or grandparents, that definition was challenged. The same federal judges who had invalidated the first and second bans then interpreted the phrase to permit the entry of anyone who had any family relationship in the U.S., any job offer, any offer of university admission or any offer of settlement here by a refugee program. The DOJ appealed that to the Supreme Court, and it removed the refugee settlement programs from the definition of bona fide relationships but permitted the remainder of the judicially determined phrase to stand. The Supreme Court also ordered oral argument on the constitutionality of the second travel ban and scheduled it for Oct. 10.

ORDER IT NOW

Last week, the court realized that the second ban expires later this week, well before Oct. 10. This is of profound constitutional significance because the expiration of the ban renders it moot. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to real cases and controversies. If the ban does not exist on Oct. 10, there will be no case or controversy over it, and the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction — no federal court will — to hear the case. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court canceled the Oct. 10 oral argument.

Cognizant of the mootness issues addressed above and aware that the second ban expires at the end of this week, the president signed a third travel ban last Sunday night. The third ban adds immigrants and refugees from Chad, North Korea and Venezuela to the remaining countries articulated in the second ban. It includes the exemption of bona fide relationships, and it purports to be based on the unique problems from people whose origin is in an international hot spot. It is not couched as a Muslim ban. Of the added countries, North Korea is largely atheist, and Venezuela is largely Roman Catholic; the remaining countries are overwhelmingly Muslim.

The third ban, which takes effect Oct. 18 — meaning that the president has chosen to impose no ban for 19 days — will affect everyone without a bona fide relationship in the U.S., and it appears to be permanent. The third ban is far more legally sophisticated than its predecessors. It purports to address each country uniquely, and it clearly was written with an eye toward the lower-court rulings over which its predecessors stumbled.

I have serious misgivings about the morality and political wisdom of these travel bans. The right to travel and to escape oppression is a natural human right, with which no government may morally interfere. And the assumption that merely because a person belongs to a group defined by immutable characteristics of birth — place of birth, in this case — the person shares all the dominant traits of others in that group has been rejected as un-American for generations.

Yet the travel bans are constitutional. That is so because the Constitution reposes foreign policy in the president and because Congress has reposed in him the ability to establish and enforce travel bans, and the courts should be loath to second-guess the president on foreign policy. That is at least how the Supreme Court has spoken on this to date. Yet look for this ban to be enjoined by lower federal courts before it takes effect. Their antipathy to all things Trump seems unabated.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Trump’s mistake was to leave the issue in the federal courts at all and not simply defy the first ruling. Many courts barely function today. Just read Mark Steyn on the unbelievably incompetent handling of his defense against a libel suit in the D.C. Superior Court. (Most practicing lawyers could cite similar experiences, but generally don’t do so publicly due to fear of judicial retaliation.) Trump would have served a second useful function of showing that black robes need not be deferred to when they engage in patently political decision making. Pity he passed up that opportunity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Trump’s mistake was to leave the issue in the federal courts at all and not simply defy the first ruling."

    His action would be unconstitutional.

    "Just read Mark Steyn on the unbelievably incompetent handling of his defense against a libel suit in the D.C. Superior Court."

    "Trump would have served a second useful function of showing that black robes need not be deferred to when they engage in patently political decision making."

    That would be Trump had he simply ignored the decision made by the Supreme Court. Trump is no Andrew Jackson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Trump's mistake was to leave the issue in the federal courts at all and not simply defy the first ruling. Many courts barely function today. Just read Mark Steyn on the unbelievably incompetent handling of his defense against a libel suit in the D.C. Superior Court. (Most practicing lawyers could cite similar experiences, but generally don't do so publicly due to fear of judicial retaliation.) Trump would have served a second useful function of showing that black robes need not be deferred to when they engage in patently political decision making. Pity he passed up that opportunity.

    “Trump’s mistake was to leave the issue in the federal courts at all and not simply defy the first ruling.”

    His action would be unconstitutional.

    “Just read Mark Steyn on the unbelievably incompetent handling of his defense against a libel suit in the D.C. Superior Court.”

    “Trump would have served a second useful function of showing that black robes need not be deferred to when they engage in patently political decision making.”

    That would be Trump had he simply ignored the decision made by the Supreme Court. Trump is no Andrew Jackson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    His action would be unconstitutional.
     
    That's debatable. There's nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The President and Congress can both also make claim to having that power. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in the famous case of Madison v. Marbury.

    Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Tundra says:

    As if to show how fatuous mainstream libertarianism is, Judge Napolitano writes that “the right to travel and to escape oppression is a natural human right, with which no government may morally interfere.” Really, Judge? So the right to travel trumps the right to maintain a country or one’s private property?

    It’s a stunningly idiotic statement. We have a right to travel elsewhere with the permission of those at that elsewhere, not in contravention of it. We have the right to flee oppression but not by inviting ourselves into others’ countries, cultures, and languages.

    Small wonder libertarianism never amounts to more than a molehill of dust, and that (finally) there is a movement afoot by some libertarians to finally acknowledge the essential roles of family, culture, tradition, and religion in both thwarting government excess and maintaining ourselves as humans with ties, not unyoked atoms a la Communism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Alison says:

    Thank you for this valuable explication of the facts and legal aspects of these bans.

    People may wish to also look at my article a few months ago on the bans, which discusses them within a larger context and examines the history of this context going back to the 1950s: “Trump’s “Muslim ban”: Israeli strategic plans to “remake the Middle East” from 2001 and before targeted the same countries” http://iakn.us/2kMZrfr

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. As a hard-core libertarian, I totally disagree with the Judge on this one. We should be able to deny or grant citizenship to anyone for any reason, including a ban on all practicing Muslims. The First Amendment only says the government may not interfere with the freedom of belief and worship within the country. It doesn’t say that we have to admit everyone, no matter how noxious their beliefs and practices may be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    "The First Amendment only says the government may not interfere with the freedom of belief and worship within the country."

     

    What it says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

    The fact that it applies to immigration is obvious in that the US was to be a place for those of persecuted religions to find solace.

    There are plenty of people who would like to block practicing Jews or practicing Christians as well.

    It's a bad road to go down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Trump’s mistake was to leave the issue in the federal courts at all and not simply defy the first ruling."

    His action would be unconstitutional.

    "Just read Mark Steyn on the unbelievably incompetent handling of his defense against a libel suit in the D.C. Superior Court."

    "Trump would have served a second useful function of showing that black robes need not be deferred to when they engage in patently political decision making."

    That would be Trump had he simply ignored the decision made by the Supreme Court. Trump is no Andrew Jackson.

    His action would be unconstitutional.

    That’s debatable. There’s nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The President and Congress can both also make claim to having that power. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in the famous case of Madison v. Marbury.

    Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That’s debatable. There’s nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not."

    Except the Constitution enabled the creation of a Supreme Court, with Congress having the authority to develop lower federal courts as needed. Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.

    Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:

    "The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

    "Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. CalDre says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    As a hard-core libertarian, I totally disagree with the Judge on this one. We should be able to deny or grant citizenship to anyone for any reason, including a ban on all practicing Muslims. The First Amendment only says the government may not interfere with the freedom of belief and worship within the country. It doesn't say that we have to admit everyone, no matter how noxious their beliefs and practices may be.

    “The First Amendment only says the government may not interfere with the freedom of belief and worship within the country.”

    What it says is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    The fact that it applies to immigration is obvious in that the US was to be a place for those of persecuted religions to find solace.

    There are plenty of people who would like to block practicing Jews or practicing Christians as well.

    It’s a bad road to go down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The fact that it applies to immigration is obvious in that the US was to be a place for those of persecuted religions to find solace.

    Now who is making crap up? Nowhere does the US have any laws relating to forcing the US to be a sanctuary for religion. This is another leftist invention driven by the Jews in WWII (Ship of the Damned). No it was intended to make sure that given the nature of some colonies having a specific basis in a religion that someone moving from one colony to another could not be restricted in their observance of their religion by crossing state lines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Don Bacon says:

    At least you didn’t call it a Muslim travel ban, but it is not a ban at all. It was set up (and then modified) to be a temporary stay so the regs could be refined. It applied principally to the citizens of countries where the US is at war. It is not abnormal to limit entry to the US of the citizens from countries the US is warring on. In fact the in the past the US has put many Americans of all ages in concentration camps if they even had an ethnic background in countries the US was warring on. That was thought to be a wonderful thing at the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    His action would be unconstitutional.
     
    That's debatable. There's nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The President and Congress can both also make claim to having that power. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in the famous case of Madison v. Marbury.

    Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts.

    “That’s debatable. There’s nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not.”

    Except the Constitution enabled the creation of a Supreme Court, with Congress having the authority to develop lower federal courts as needed. Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.

    Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:

    “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

    “Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.
     
    Hardly. Art. III, Sec. 2 provides: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". So Congress could pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. Ergo, the power is not inherent.

    The Supreme Cunts are a judicial dictatorship that make up law that has not even the slightest basis in the Constitution, on the one hand, and ignore clear and unambiguous language, on the other hand. They get a grade of F- in their exercise of this power. The Constitution did not envision a judicial dictatorship, and that's what it's become.

    They are worse than Iran's mullahs. At least the mullahs stick to tried and true interpretations of the Qu-ran, they don't suddenly discover, say, the right to sodomy in the Qu-ran.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "That’s debatable. There’s nothing in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not."

    Except the Constitution enabled the creation of a Supreme Court, with Congress having the authority to develop lower federal courts as needed. Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.

    Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:

    "The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

    "Unfortunately not one of the three corrupt branches of our government can be trusted to abide by the Constitution. Certainly not Trump, but also not the Supreme Cunts."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.

    Hardly. Art. III, Sec. 2 provides: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”. So Congress could pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. Ergo, the power is not inherent.

    The Supreme Cunts are a judicial dictatorship that make up law that has not even the slightest basis in the Constitution, on the one hand, and ignore clear and unambiguous language, on the other hand. They get a grade of F- in their exercise of this power. The Constitution did not envision a judicial dictatorship, and that’s what it’s become.

    They are worse than Iran’s mullahs. At least the mullahs stick to tried and true interpretations of the Qu-ran, they don’t suddenly discover, say, the right to sodomy in the Qu-ran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Pay closer attention here. Art. III, Sec. 2 provided Congress with the inherent power to create a federal court system. The Founding Fathers acknowledged, as evident by the Hamilton quotation I provided, that a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law. Recall that during the era of the Articles of Confederation, in matters of state legal disputes, each state supreme courts would render a decision favorable to their side. The Confederation Congress was powerless to intervene. Several states actually threatened war over these disputes that were not decided impartially. The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop. Of course, in our system of checks and balances, if a Supreme Court decision does not "sit well" with Congress and/or the people, then the constitutional amendment process is the next step. Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a "judicial dictatorship", you are offering a baseless characterization. Consider that each Justice is guided by one of several constitutional interpretation theories, which undoubtedly clash in a number of instances.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

    Indeed, Congress COULD pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutional of laws; however, given how our Founding Fathers acknowledged the importance of the federal court system, such a law would create unnecessary legal chaos. How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Judicial review, as established by Madison v. Marbury, is the natural extension of that constitutional authority.
     
    Hardly. Art. III, Sec. 2 provides: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". So Congress could pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. Ergo, the power is not inherent.

    The Supreme Cunts are a judicial dictatorship that make up law that has not even the slightest basis in the Constitution, on the one hand, and ignore clear and unambiguous language, on the other hand. They get a grade of F- in their exercise of this power. The Constitution did not envision a judicial dictatorship, and that's what it's become.

    They are worse than Iran's mullahs. At least the mullahs stick to tried and true interpretations of the Qu-ran, they don't suddenly discover, say, the right to sodomy in the Qu-ran.

    Pay closer attention here. Art. III, Sec. 2 provided Congress with the inherent power to create a federal court system. The Founding Fathers acknowledged, as evident by the Hamilton quotation I provided, that a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law. Recall that during the era of the Articles of Confederation, in matters of state legal disputes, each state supreme courts would render a decision favorable to their side. The Confederation Congress was powerless to intervene. Several states actually threatened war over these disputes that were not decided impartially. The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop. Of course, in our system of checks and balances, if a Supreme Court decision does not “sit well” with Congress and/or the people, then the constitutional amendment process is the next step. Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a “judicial dictatorship”, you are offering a baseless characterization. Consider that each Justice is guided by one of several constitutional interpretation theories, which undoubtedly clash in a number of instances.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

    Indeed, Congress COULD pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutional of laws; however, given how our Founding Fathers acknowledged the importance of the federal court system, such a law would create unnecessary legal chaos. How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Pay closer attention here.
     
    I studied the Constitution, hence your condescension is inapposite.

    a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law.
     
    Neither today, and most certainly not during the express reign of the monarchy, do British courts have judicial review of legislation. In fact UK does not have a constitution. Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is "sovereign".

    The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop.
     
    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

    then the constitutional amendment process is the next step.
     
    Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It's still a dictatorship.

    Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a “judicial dictatorship”, you are offering a baseless characterization.
     
    Quite contraire, I am offering a cogent analysis of the facts. You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is "unconstitutional".

    How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?
     
    It's for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision.

    I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality. However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution. Hence they are not "interpreting" the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    Pay closer attention here. Art. III, Sec. 2 provided Congress with the inherent power to create a federal court system. The Founding Fathers acknowledged, as evident by the Hamilton quotation I provided, that a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law. Recall that during the era of the Articles of Confederation, in matters of state legal disputes, each state supreme courts would render a decision favorable to their side. The Confederation Congress was powerless to intervene. Several states actually threatened war over these disputes that were not decided impartially. The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop. Of course, in our system of checks and balances, if a Supreme Court decision does not "sit well" with Congress and/or the people, then the constitutional amendment process is the next step. Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a "judicial dictatorship", you are offering a baseless characterization. Consider that each Justice is guided by one of several constitutional interpretation theories, which undoubtedly clash in a number of instances.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

    Indeed, Congress COULD pass a law precluding judicial review of the constitutional of laws; however, given how our Founding Fathers acknowledged the importance of the federal court system, such a law would create unnecessary legal chaos. How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?

    Pay closer attention here.

    I studied the Constitution, hence your condescension is inapposite.

    a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law.

    Neither today, and most certainly not during the express reign of the monarchy, do British courts have judicial review of legislation. In fact UK does not have a constitution. Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is “sovereign”.

    The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

    then the constitutional amendment process is the next step.

    Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship.

    Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a “judicial dictatorship”, you are offering a baseless characterization.

    Quite contraire, I am offering a cogent analysis of the facts. You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is “unconstitutional”.

    How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?

    It’s for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision.

    I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality. However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution. Hence they are not “interpreting” the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "[British] Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is “sovereign”."

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.

    "Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court."

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state. Again, during the Articles of Confederation, the legal recourse for one person in one state to sue another person in another state inevitably ran afoul, as each state generally rendered contradicting decisions. The Founding Fathers thus found it necessary to ensure that the Supreme Court in these particular cases would hear these matters and judge according to the merits of the case.

    "Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship."

    False comparison--our legal system is way different to China's legal system. Furthermore, there is no "dictatorship" with our constitutional amendment process. Again, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume the role of judicial review in regard to the Constitution.

    "You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is “unconstitutional”."

    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature. Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.

    "It’s for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision."

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.

    "I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality."

    Which, in this instance, would be dictatorial in nature, as it would only decide for a particular group of people. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed the challenge of the Supreme Court, stating,"We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

    "However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution."

    Patently false.

    "Hence they are not “interpreting” the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous."

    You are assuredly entitled to your opinion. The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are "stuck with it".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Pay closer attention here.
     
    I studied the Constitution, hence your condescension is inapposite.

    a final arbiter of whether legislation was constitutional, which is predicated on English common law.
     
    Neither today, and most certainly not during the express reign of the monarchy, do British courts have judicial review of legislation. In fact UK does not have a constitution. Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is "sovereign".

    The Founding Fathers thus recognized the natural extension of Congress to create a federal Supreme Court o serve as the final legal resting stop.
     
    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

    then the constitutional amendment process is the next step.
     
    Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It's still a dictatorship.

    Thus, when say that the Supreme Court is a “judicial dictatorship”, you are offering a baseless characterization.
     
    Quite contraire, I am offering a cogent analysis of the facts. You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is "unconstitutional".

    How on earth would constitutional questions be ultimately decided if there was no Supreme Court?
     
    It's for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision.

    I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality. However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution. Hence they are not "interpreting" the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous.

    “[British] Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is “sovereign”.”

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.

    “Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.”

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state. Again, during the Articles of Confederation, the legal recourse for one person in one state to sue another person in another state inevitably ran afoul, as each state generally rendered contradicting decisions. The Founding Fathers thus found it necessary to ensure that the Supreme Court in these particular cases would hear these matters and judge according to the merits of the case.

    “Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship.”

    False comparison–our legal system is way different to China’s legal system. Furthermore, there is no “dictatorship” with our constitutional amendment process. Again, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume the role of judicial review in regard to the Constitution.

    “You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is “unconstitutional”.”

    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature. Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.

    “It’s for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision.”

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.

    “I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality.”

    Which, in this instance, would be dictatorial in nature, as it would only decide for a particular group of people. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed the challenge of the Supreme Court, stating,”We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding…intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

    “However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution.”

    Patently false.

    “Hence they are not “interpreting” the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous.”

    You are assuredly entitled to your opinion. The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are “stuck with it”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.
     
    It's not judicial review in the sense you mean. The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air. And if the courts get it wrong, it's a simple matter for Parliament to modify the law, unlike the constitutional amendment process and its super-majority requirements (which are there for a reason, and that reason is not. so the Supreme Cunts can rule by edict and prevent the people from righting their wrong). Why should 3/4 of the country have to approve an amendment decided by Supreme Cunts with a 5-4 vote? That's not democracy, and that's not our Constitution.

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state.
     
    None of which has anything to do with judicial review.

    “Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship.”

    False comparison–our legal system is way different to China’s legal system. Furthermore, there is no “dictatorship” with our constitutional amendment process.
     

    Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected. And you have it all backwards: if Americans want to change the Constitution from its clear language, there should be an amendment; not the Supreme Cunts pulling a decision out of their asses and then forcing this virtually impossible project to "overrule" them.

    Yes, it is possible for an amendment to happen, it is also possible for a revolution to happen. Each is equally likely at this point. The fact that there is an "out" does not mean it is not dictatorship; every dictatorship has an "out".


    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature.
     
    Hamilton was one man, and his views are not the Constitution. It was "Brutus" who argued that the Supreme Cunts would abuse their authority: "There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself." And he was clearly prescient in his analysis.

    Hamilton, for his part, agreed with my point at the end of my last post: "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Unfortunately they are not bound by strict precedents, or guided by the Constitution; they create "law" at their (ideological) whim. Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew about the mantle of satanic dictatorship the Supreme Courts have wielded.


    Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?
     
    The Supreme Cunts, for the hundredth time, don't "interpret" the Constitution - they impose their (satanic/communist) ideology by fiat. And where there is clear language in the Constitution which Congress ignores, which was Hamilton's concern, they rubber stamp it (as long as it complies with their ideology).

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.
     
    Spare me the childish rendition of how courts work. They impose an agenda, doesn't matter what the legal arguments are.

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.
     
    Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses, but the lack of a federal court to judge Congressional or state laws "invalid" at their whim wasn't one of them.

    “However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution.”

    Patently false.
     

    I'll mention a few pulling out of the arse: Lawrence v. Texas; Roe v. Wade; Griswald v. Connecticut; and many many more.

    And one ignoring the plain language of the Constitution: Wickard v. Filburn (and many many more).


    The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are “stuck with it”.
     
    I never even suggested eliminating the Supreme Court; what I want to eliminate is the Supreme Cunts. A revolution may just be what's needed, but Congress could do it, if Congress weren't in the service of the very same globalist/satanic/Communist oligarchs who also control the Supreme Cunts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "[British] Courts can only review the acts of public bodies to determine if they are in accord with acts of Parliament, as Parliament is “sovereign”."

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.

    "Which has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial review. Disputes among states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court."

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state. Again, during the Articles of Confederation, the legal recourse for one person in one state to sue another person in another state inevitably ran afoul, as each state generally rendered contradicting decisions. The Founding Fathers thus found it necessary to ensure that the Supreme Court in these particular cases would hear these matters and judge according to the merits of the case.

    "Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship."

    False comparison--our legal system is way different to China's legal system. Furthermore, there is no "dictatorship" with our constitutional amendment process. Again, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume the role of judicial review in regard to the Constitution.

    "You, on the other hand, are living in Liberal Fairy Land, where by a vote of 5-4, with no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, the Supreme Cunts can decree that a law on the books in 45 states for over 100 years is “unconstitutional”."

    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature. Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.

    "It’s for Congress, when enacting a law, and the President, when signing it, to reach this decision."

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.

    "I could live with a court having the power of judicial review if it is exercised conservatively and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality."

    Which, in this instance, would be dictatorial in nature, as it would only decide for a particular group of people. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed the challenge of the Supreme Court, stating,"We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

    "However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution."

    Patently false.

    "Hence they are not “interpreting” the Constitution, but re-writing it, based on their ideology. They are political dictators, no way around it if you bother for a moment to be genuous."

    You are assuredly entitled to your opinion. The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are "stuck with it".

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.

    It’s not judicial review in the sense you mean. The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air. And if the courts get it wrong, it’s a simple matter for Parliament to modify the law, unlike the constitutional amendment process and its super-majority requirements (which are there for a reason, and that reason is not. so the Supreme Cunts can rule by edict and prevent the people from righting their wrong). Why should 3/4 of the country have to approve an amendment decided by Supreme Cunts with a 5-4 vote? That’s not democracy, and that’s not our Constitution.

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state.

    None of which has anything to do with judicial review.

    “Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship.”

    False comparison–our legal system is way different to China’s legal system. Furthermore, there is no “dictatorship” with our constitutional amendment process.

    Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected. And you have it all backwards: if Americans want to change the Constitution from its clear language, there should be an amendment; not the Supreme Cunts pulling a decision out of their asses and then forcing this virtually impossible project to “overrule” them.

    Yes, it is possible for an amendment to happen, it is also possible for a revolution to happen. Each is equally likely at this point. The fact that there is an “out” does not mean it is not dictatorship; every dictatorship has an “out”.

    [MORE]

    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature.

    Hamilton was one man, and his views are not the Constitution. It was “Brutus” who argued that the Supreme Cunts would abuse their authority: “There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.” And he was clearly prescient in his analysis.

    Hamilton, for his part, agreed with my point at the end of my last post: “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.” Unfortunately they are not bound by strict precedents, or guided by the Constitution; they create “law” at their (ideological) whim. Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew about the mantle of satanic dictatorship the Supreme Courts have wielded.

    Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?

    The Supreme Cunts, for the hundredth time, don’t “interpret” the Constitution – they impose their (satanic/communist) ideology by fiat. And where there is clear language in the Constitution which Congress ignores, which was Hamilton’s concern, they rubber stamp it (as long as it complies with their ideology).

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.

    Spare me the childish rendition of how courts work. They impose an agenda, doesn’t matter what the legal arguments are.

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.

    Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses, but the lack of a federal court to judge Congressional or state laws “invalid” at their whim wasn’t one of them.

    “However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution.”

    Patently false.

    I’ll mention a few pulling out of the arse: Lawrence v. Texas; Roe v. Wade; Griswald v. Connecticut; and many many more.

    And one ignoring the plain language of the Constitution: Wickard v. Filburn (and many many more).

    The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are “stuck with it”.

    I never even suggested eliminating the Supreme Court; what I want to eliminate is the Supreme Cunts. A revolution may just be what’s needed, but Congress could do it, if Congress weren’t in the service of the very same globalist/satanic/Communist oligarchs who also control the Supreme Cunts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
    You are right of course.

    Activist left wing judges are playing oily and seditious word games in particular with the meaning of the 14th amendment.

    The 14th amendment says that all US citizens are supposed to enjoy equal protection of the Laws at both the federal and the state level, where the Laws the 14th is referring to are those that are LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

    In particular, the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights were transformed by the 14th from only federal restrictions to federal and state restrictions.

    Constitution literalists know this idea to be the logical and historical meaning of the 14th.

    Left wing activist jurist have perverted the logical and historical meaning of the 14th to be the granting of whatever federal entitlements the diversity freak majority desires.

    Left wing activist jurist also ignore the existence of the 10th amendment, pretending it has no real effect or ignorantly claiming it has been "superseded".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Corvinus says:

    “The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air.”

    Right, judicial review. A court is reviewing whether or not that specific body is adhering to procedure.

    “Why should 3/4 of the country have to approve an amendment decided by Supreme Cunts with a 5-4 vote? That’s not democracy, and that’s not our Constitution.”

    Of course our amendment process is rooted in representative government and is a fundamental component of our Constitution. The Framers made it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court overrules a law, even with the slimmest of margins, the people if so strongly moved may intervene, regardless if the difficulty level is extreme to overturn that decision.

    “None of which has anything to do with judicial review.”

    You are decidedly in error here.

    “Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected.”

    Supreme Court judges are not dictators.

    “And you have it all backwards: if Americans want to change the Constitution from its clear language, there should be an amendment; not the Supreme Cunts pulling a decision out of their asses and then forcing this virtually impossible project to “overrule” them.”

    Again, the Founding Fathers purposely made this process challenging, but not impossible. If the majority of citizens desire to have the law become a fixture to our Constitution, they have the avenue to make it happen.

    “Hamilton was one man, and his views are not the Constitution. It was “Brutus” who argued that the Supreme Cunts would abuse their authority: “There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.” And he was clearly prescient in his analysis.

    Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court was the “least dangerous branch of our government”. He properly recognized in Federalist Paper 78 that “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts…Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”

    Recall that our Framers put protective measures in place for our courts–lifetime tenure so Justices would not be “looking over their shoulders”; no economic pressure by way of reduction of their pay; and no veto power to the legislative or executive branch when one or both found rulings to be “noxious”. Congress, in the end, retained the authority to pass new laws in light of those rulings.

    “Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew about the mantle of satanic dictatorship the Supreme Courts have wielded.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    “The Supreme Cunts, for the hundredth time, don’t “interpret” the Constitution – they impose their (satanic/communist) ideology by fiat. And where there is clear language in the Constitution which Congress ignores, which was Hamilton’s concern, they rubber stamp it (as long as it complies with their ideology).”

    Of course the Justices interpret the Constitution. They have a stated or unstated framework for analyzing the text. Judicial review is a classic check on a potentially aggressive legislature. Of course, judicial review magically is transformed to “judicial activism” by those on the right and on the left when it does not like a decision.

    “Spare me the childish rendition of how courts work. They impose an agenda, doesn’t matter what the legal arguments are.”

    There is no agenda imposed, but rather a legal decision that is made.

    “I never even suggested eliminating the Supreme Court; what I want to eliminate is the Supreme Cunts. A revolution may just be what’s needed, but Congress could do it, if Congress weren’t in the service of the very same globalist/satanic/Communist oligarchs who also control the Supreme Cunts.”

    The power of “judicial review” has given the Supreme Court a critical role in protecting individual liberties, as well as maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are regularly applied to complex and novel circumstances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    “The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air.”

    Right, judicial review. A court is reviewing whether or not that specific body is adhering to procedure.
     

    You are clearly wrong. "Judicial review" in the US pertains to the Supreme Cunts' review of the constitutionality of an act of Congress or a state legislature. In UK courts do not have this power.

    The Framers made it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court overrules a law, even with the slimmest of margins, the people if so strongly moved may intervene, regardless if the difficulty level is extreme to overturn that decision.
     
    They didn't make that clear, and in any event, the Constitution stands by itself. The intent that matters is of those ratifying the Constitution, not the drafters, even if there was a consensus amongst them, which there obviously wasn't. In fact there were proposals to make judicial review explicit and these proposals were rejected.

    “Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected.”

    Supreme Court judges are not dictators.
     

    Right, specifically, they are satanic/Communist dictators.

    Again, the Founding Fathers purposely made this process challenging, but not impossible. If the majority of citizens desire to have the law become a fixture to our Constitution, they have the avenue to make it happen.
     
    That's right, if they want to change the Constitution - not to overrule arbitrary and capricious decrees with no basis in the Constitution by pulled out of the Supreme Cunts' arses. The latter is unconstitutional on its face.

    Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court was the “least dangerous branch of our government”.
     
    He was assuming they would not be the dictators they have become.

    He properly recognized in Federalist Paper 78 that “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts…Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”
     
    Except the Supreme Cunts don't do that. They make up law that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and they uphold laws that clearly violate the Constitution. You must be a Satanic Communist yourself, so there is no hope of convincing you, as you are ends-oriented and love their dictatorial decrees. Mark my words, one day you won't.

    Of course the Justices interpret the Constitution. They have a stated or unstated framework for analyzing the text. Judicial review is a classic check on a potentially aggressive legislature.


    No, they don't interpret, they ignore and fabricate. The Constitution as the Supreme Cuntes have "interpreted" it has scant relationship to the actual document. As to "classic" check, why don't you go through history and enlighten us with the historical basis for this power.

    Of course, judicial review magically is transformed to “judicial activism” by those on the right and on the left when it does not like a decision.
     
    Actually it is you that is motivated by your love for the satanic/Communist garbage the Supreme Cunts consistently decree. My objection to the Supreme Cunts is that it is a dictatorship, whether I approve of a particular principle they decree is irrelevant to my objection.

    The power of “judicial review” has given the Supreme Court a critical role in protecting individual liberties, as well as maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are regularly applied to complex and novel circumstances.
     
    The civil liberties which are to be protected are enumerated in the Constitution, not in the asses of the Supreme Cunts. The whole "living Constitution" lie is made up by the Satanists/Communists who agree with the judicial dictatorship as it currently advances their agendas. The proper way to make the Constituting a "living" document, as you call it, is to use the Amendment process, not to have unelected and unaccountable dictators make unlawful, unconstitutional, and unjust decrees based on their ideology.

     

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @CalDre

    Correct, there is judicial review in this particular circumstance.
     
    It's not judicial review in the sense you mean. The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air. And if the courts get it wrong, it's a simple matter for Parliament to modify the law, unlike the constitutional amendment process and its super-majority requirements (which are there for a reason, and that reason is not. so the Supreme Cunts can rule by edict and prevent the people from righting their wrong). Why should 3/4 of the country have to approve an amendment decided by Supreme Cunts with a 5-4 vote? That's not democracy, and that's not our Constitution.

    It has everything to do with judicial review. Individuals and companies who believe their rights are violated may sue in court. The Supreme Court was set up specifically to handle those matters, whether it be individual vs. individual or individual vs. state.
     
    None of which has anything to do with judicial review.

    “Right, and if in China a law does not sit well, a revolution is the next step. Both are about as easy as the other. It’s still a dictatorship.”

    False comparison–our legal system is way different to China’s legal system. Furthermore, there is no “dictatorship” with our constitutional amendment process.
     

    Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected. And you have it all backwards: if Americans want to change the Constitution from its clear language, there should be an amendment; not the Supreme Cunts pulling a decision out of their asses and then forcing this virtually impossible project to "overrule" them.

    Yes, it is possible for an amendment to happen, it is also possible for a revolution to happen. Each is equally likely at this point. The fact that there is an "out" does not mean it is not dictatorship; every dictatorship has an "out".


    Talk about fantasy land. Hamilton wrote that through the practice of judicial review, the Court would ensure that the will of the people would be supreme over the will of the legislature.
     
    Hamilton was one man, and his views are not the Constitution. It was "Brutus" who argued that the Supreme Cunts would abuse their authority: "There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself." And he was clearly prescient in his analysis.

    Hamilton, for his part, agreed with my point at the end of my last post: "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Unfortunately they are not bound by strict precedents, or guided by the Constitution; they create "law" at their (ideological) whim. Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew about the mantle of satanic dictatorship the Supreme Courts have wielded.


    Madison wrote that interpretation of the Constitution ought to be in the hands of independent judges, rather than the tumult of politicians. Remember, these individuals are intelligent white men. Would it be fair to assume that you would oppose their rationale?
     
    The Supreme Cunts, for the hundredth time, don't "interpret" the Constitution - they impose their (satanic/communist) ideology by fiat. And where there is clear language in the Constitution which Congress ignores, which was Hamilton's concern, they rubber stamp it (as long as it complies with their ideology).

    Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have a decided basis on the Constitution. They consider the legal arguments offered, take into account past decisions and precedents, and provide a opinion.
     
    Spare me the childish rendition of how courts work. They impose an agenda, doesn't matter what the legal arguments are.

    The Articles of Confederation clearly demonstrated the major flaws in this system. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the creation of the federal court system. Checkmate.
     
    Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses, but the lack of a federal court to judge Congressional or state laws "invalid" at their whim wasn't one of them.

    “However, quite to the contrary, the Supreme Cunts pull countless rulings out of their ass, and consistently avoid even the clearest language in the Constitution.”

    Patently false.
     

    I'll mention a few pulling out of the arse: Lawrence v. Texas; Roe v. Wade; Griswald v. Connecticut; and many many more.

    And one ignoring the plain language of the Constitution: Wickard v. Filburn (and many many more).


    The reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court is an integral part of our three branches of government. Unless Congress abolishes it and starts from scratch, you are “stuck with it”.
     
    I never even suggested eliminating the Supreme Court; what I want to eliminate is the Supreme Cunts. A revolution may just be what's needed, but Congress could do it, if Congress weren't in the service of the very same globalist/satanic/Communist oligarchs who also control the Supreme Cunts.

    You are right of course.

    Activist left wing judges are playing oily and seditious word games in particular with the meaning of the 14th amendment.

    The 14th amendment says that all US citizens are supposed to enjoy equal protection of the Laws at both the federal and the state level, where the Laws the 14th is referring to are those that are LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

    In particular, the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights were transformed by the 14th from only federal restrictions to federal and state restrictions.

    Constitution literalists know this idea to be the logical and historical meaning of the 14th.

    Left wing activist jurist have perverted the logical and historical meaning of the 14th to be the granting of whatever federal entitlements the diversity freak majority desires.

    Left wing activist jurist also ignore the existence of the 10th amendment, pretending it has no real effect or ignorantly claiming it has been “superseded”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Left wing activist jurist also ignore the existence of the 10th amendment, pretending it has no real effect or ignorantly claiming it has been “superseded”.

    Or they find some way for the Commerce Clause to involve the federal government and supercede state jurisdiction.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air."

    Right, judicial review. A court is reviewing whether or not that specific body is adhering to procedure.

    "Why should 3/4 of the country have to approve an amendment decided by Supreme Cunts with a 5-4 vote? That’s not democracy, and that’s not our Constitution."

    Of course our amendment process is rooted in representative government and is a fundamental component of our Constitution. The Framers made it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court overrules a law, even with the slimmest of margins, the people if so strongly moved may intervene, regardless if the difficulty level is extreme to overturn that decision.

    "None of which has anything to do with judicial review."

    You are decidedly in error here.

    "Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected."

    Supreme Court judges are not dictators.

    "And you have it all backwards: if Americans want to change the Constitution from its clear language, there should be an amendment; not the Supreme Cunts pulling a decision out of their asses and then forcing this virtually impossible project to “overrule” them."

    Again, the Founding Fathers purposely made this process challenging, but not impossible. If the majority of citizens desire to have the law become a fixture to our Constitution, they have the avenue to make it happen.

    "Hamilton was one man, and his views are not the Constitution. It was “Brutus” who argued that the Supreme Cunts would abuse their authority: “There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.” And he was clearly prescient in his analysis.

    Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court was the "least dangerous branch of our government". He properly recognized in Federalist Paper 78 that "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts...Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

    Recall that our Framers put protective measures in place for our courts--lifetime tenure so Justices would not be "looking over their shoulders"; no economic pressure by way of reduction of their pay; and no veto power to the legislative or executive branch when one or both found rulings to be "noxious". Congress, in the end, retained the authority to pass new laws in light of those rulings.

    "Hamilton would turn over in his grave if he knew about the mantle of satanic dictatorship the Supreme Courts have wielded."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    "The Supreme Cunts, for the hundredth time, don’t “interpret” the Constitution – they impose their (satanic/communist) ideology by fiat. And where there is clear language in the Constitution which Congress ignores, which was Hamilton’s concern, they rubber stamp it (as long as it complies with their ideology)."

    Of course the Justices interpret the Constitution. They have a stated or unstated framework for analyzing the text. Judicial review is a classic check on a potentially aggressive legislature. Of course, judicial review magically is transformed to "judicial activism" by those on the right and on the left when it does not like a decision.

    "Spare me the childish rendition of how courts work. They impose an agenda, doesn’t matter what the legal arguments are."

    There is no agenda imposed, but rather a legal decision that is made.

    "I never even suggested eliminating the Supreme Court; what I want to eliminate is the Supreme Cunts. A revolution may just be what’s needed, but Congress could do it, if Congress weren’t in the service of the very same globalist/satanic/Communist oligarchs who also control the Supreme Cunts."

    The power of "judicial review" has given the Supreme Court a critical role in protecting individual liberties, as well as maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are regularly applied to complex and novel circumstances.

    “The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air.”

    Right, judicial review. A court is reviewing whether or not that specific body is adhering to procedure.

    You are clearly wrong. “Judicial review” in the US pertains to the Supreme Cunts’ review of the constitutionality of an act of Congress or a state legislature. In UK courts do not have this power.

    The Framers made it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court overrules a law, even with the slimmest of margins, the people if so strongly moved may intervene, regardless if the difficulty level is extreme to overturn that decision.

    They didn’t make that clear, and in any event, the Constitution stands by itself. The intent that matters is of those ratifying the Constitution, not the drafters, even if there was a consensus amongst them, which there obviously wasn’t. In fact there were proposals to make judicial review explicit and these proposals were rejected.

    “Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected.”

    Supreme Court judges are not dictators.

    Right, specifically, they are satanic/Communist dictators.

    Again, the Founding Fathers purposely made this process challenging, but not impossible. If the majority of citizens desire to have the law become a fixture to our Constitution, they have the avenue to make it happen.

    That’s right, if they want to change the Constitution – not to overrule arbitrary and capricious decrees with no basis in the Constitution by pulled out of the Supreme Cunts’ arses. The latter is unconstitutional on its face.

    [MORE]

    Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court was the “least dangerous branch of our government”.

    He was assuming they would not be the dictators they have become.

    He properly recognized in Federalist Paper 78 that “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts…Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”

    Except the Supreme Cunts don’t do that. They make up law that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and they uphold laws that clearly violate the Constitution. You must be a Satanic Communist yourself, so there is no hope of convincing you, as you are ends-oriented and love their dictatorial decrees. Mark my words, one day you won’t.

    Of course the Justices interpret the Constitution. They have a stated or unstated framework for analyzing the text. Judicial review is a classic check on a potentially aggressive legislature.


    No, they don’t interpret, they ignore and fabricate. The Constitution as the Supreme Cuntes have “interpreted” it has scant relationship to the actual document. As to “classic” check, why don’t you go through history and enlighten us with the historical basis for this power.

    Of course, judicial review magically is transformed to “judicial activism” by those on the right and on the left when it does not like a decision.

    Actually it is you that is motivated by your love for the satanic/Communist garbage the Supreme Cunts consistently decree. My objection to the Supreme Cunts is that it is a dictatorship, whether I approve of a particular principle they decree is irrelevant to my objection.

    The power of “judicial review” has given the Supreme Court a critical role in protecting individual liberties, as well as maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are regularly applied to complex and novel circumstances.

    The civil liberties which are to be protected are enumerated in the Constitution, not in the asses of the Supreme Cunts. The whole “living Constitution” lie is made up by the Satanists/Communists who agree with the judicial dictatorship as it currently advances their agendas. The proper way to make the Constituting a “living” document, as you call it, is to use the Amendment process, not to have unelected and unaccountable dictators make unlawful, unconstitutional, and unjust decrees based on their ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They didn’t make that clear, and in any event, the Constitution stands by itself. "

    Of course the Framers made it clear that Congress could create a federal judiciary. How they created it and what powers derived from that act was up to the legislative branch. Considering the clear chaos that was demonstrated during the Articles of Confederation, the Founders sought to have a process by which there would be a final legal decision involving competing interests, whether it be individual vs. individual, individual vs. state, or state vs. state. The Amendment process would not solve their immediate concerns. The society that we created demanded that a legal system work to balance the rights when there is conflict. |

    During the Constitutional Convention, a majority of delegates believed that under the Constitution, federal judges would have the power of judicial review; thus, they felt little need to offer a formal amendment. James Madison stated, "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void." George Mason specified that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void..But with regard to every law however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course." In other words, Mason was describing the discretion afforded to judges to employ legal reasoning, which inevitably will be guided by personal views on how the law ought to be interpreted, as is the nature of people. The law does not magically appear out of nowhere, it is crafted by people's personal preferences as to what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, based on the norms of a society, political ideology, and religious beliefs.

    "He was assuming they would not be the dictators they have become."

    Except the Supreme Court are not dictators, nor are they arbitrary, nor capricious, nor Satanic, nor Communist.

    "The civil liberties which are to be protected are enumerated in the Constitution, not in the asses of the Supreme Cunts."

    And what those specific rights mean are have always been subject to interpretation by competing groups; hence, the Founding Fathers recognized the need for a court system to make decisions in times of conflict.

    "The whole “living Constitution” lie is made up by the Satanists/Communists who agree with the judicial dictatorship as it currently advances their agendas."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. MarkinLA says:
    @CalDre

    "The First Amendment only says the government may not interfere with the freedom of belief and worship within the country."

     

    What it says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

    The fact that it applies to immigration is obvious in that the US was to be a place for those of persecuted religions to find solace.

    There are plenty of people who would like to block practicing Jews or practicing Christians as well.

    It's a bad road to go down.

    The fact that it applies to immigration is obvious in that the US was to be a place for those of persecuted religions to find solace.

    Now who is making crap up? Nowhere does the US have any laws relating to forcing the US to be a sanctuary for religion. This is another leftist invention driven by the Jews in WWII (Ship of the Damned). No it was intended to make sure that given the nature of some colonies having a specific basis in a religion that someone moving from one colony to another could not be restricted in their observance of their religion by crossing state lines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. MarkinLA says:
    @Joe Franklin
    You are right of course.

    Activist left wing judges are playing oily and seditious word games in particular with the meaning of the 14th amendment.

    The 14th amendment says that all US citizens are supposed to enjoy equal protection of the Laws at both the federal and the state level, where the Laws the 14th is referring to are those that are LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

    In particular, the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights were transformed by the 14th from only federal restrictions to federal and state restrictions.

    Constitution literalists know this idea to be the logical and historical meaning of the 14th.

    Left wing activist jurist have perverted the logical and historical meaning of the 14th to be the granting of whatever federal entitlements the diversity freak majority desires.

    Left wing activist jurist also ignore the existence of the 10th amendment, pretending it has no real effect or ignorantly claiming it has been "superseded".

    Left wing activist jurist also ignore the existence of the 10th amendment, pretending it has no real effect or ignorantly claiming it has been “superseded”.

    Or they find some way for the Commerce Clause to involve the federal government and supercede state jurisdiction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. MarkinLA says:

    This guy gets nuttier and nuttier with each column. I wonder if he has caught what Hillary has?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    “The court is not overruling the Parliament, nor is it creating law out of thin air. It is simply preventing an unelected executive agency from creating law out of thin air.”

    Right, judicial review. A court is reviewing whether or not that specific body is adhering to procedure.
     

    You are clearly wrong. "Judicial review" in the US pertains to the Supreme Cunts' review of the constitutionality of an act of Congress or a state legislature. In UK courts do not have this power.

    The Framers made it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court overrules a law, even with the slimmest of margins, the people if so strongly moved may intervene, regardless if the difficulty level is extreme to overturn that decision.
     
    They didn't make that clear, and in any event, the Constitution stands by itself. The intent that matters is of those ratifying the Constitution, not the drafters, even if there was a consensus amongst them, which there obviously wasn't. In fact there were proposals to make judicial review explicit and these proposals were rejected.

    “Last constitutional amendment was 28 years ago. It is a dictatorship, as the judges are not elected.”

    Supreme Court judges are not dictators.
     

    Right, specifically, they are satanic/Communist dictators.

    Again, the Founding Fathers purposely made this process challenging, but not impossible. If the majority of citizens desire to have the law become a fixture to our Constitution, they have the avenue to make it happen.
     
    That's right, if they want to change the Constitution - not to overrule arbitrary and capricious decrees with no basis in the Constitution by pulled out of the Supreme Cunts' arses. The latter is unconstitutional on its face.

    Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court was the “least dangerous branch of our government”.
     
    He was assuming they would not be the dictators they have become.

    He properly recognized in Federalist Paper 78 that “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts…Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”
     
    Except the Supreme Cunts don't do that. They make up law that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and they uphold laws that clearly violate the Constitution. You must be a Satanic Communist yourself, so there is no hope of convincing you, as you are ends-oriented and love their dictatorial decrees. Mark my words, one day you won't.

    Of course the Justices interpret the Constitution. They have a stated or unstated framework for analyzing the text. Judicial review is a classic check on a potentially aggressive legislature.


    No, they don't interpret, they ignore and fabricate. The Constitution as the Supreme Cuntes have "interpreted" it has scant relationship to the actual document. As to "classic" check, why don't you go through history and enlighten us with the historical basis for this power.

    Of course, judicial review magically is transformed to “judicial activism” by those on the right and on the left when it does not like a decision.
     
    Actually it is you that is motivated by your love for the satanic/Communist garbage the Supreme Cunts consistently decree. My objection to the Supreme Cunts is that it is a dictatorship, whether I approve of a particular principle they decree is irrelevant to my objection.

    The power of “judicial review” has given the Supreme Court a critical role in protecting individual liberties, as well as maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are regularly applied to complex and novel circumstances.
     
    The civil liberties which are to be protected are enumerated in the Constitution, not in the asses of the Supreme Cunts. The whole "living Constitution" lie is made up by the Satanists/Communists who agree with the judicial dictatorship as it currently advances their agendas. The proper way to make the Constituting a "living" document, as you call it, is to use the Amendment process, not to have unelected and unaccountable dictators make unlawful, unconstitutional, and unjust decrees based on their ideology.

     

     

    “They didn’t make that clear, and in any event, the Constitution stands by itself. ”

    Of course the Framers made it clear that Congress could create a federal judiciary. How they created it and what powers derived from that act was up to the legislative branch. Considering the clear chaos that was demonstrated during the Articles of Confederation, the Founders sought to have a process by which there would be a final legal decision involving competing interests, whether it be individual vs. individual, individual vs. state, or state vs. state. The Amendment process would not solve their immediate concerns. The society that we created demanded that a legal system work to balance the rights when there is conflict. |

    During the Constitutional Convention, a majority of delegates believed that under the Constitution, federal judges would have the power of judicial review; thus, they felt little need to offer a formal amendment. James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” George Mason specified that judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void..But with regard to every law however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course.” In other words, Mason was describing the discretion afforded to judges to employ legal reasoning, which inevitably will be guided by personal views on how the law ought to be interpreted, as is the nature of people. The law does not magically appear out of nowhere, it is crafted by people’s personal preferences as to what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, based on the norms of a society, political ideology, and religious beliefs.

    “He was assuming they would not be the dictators they have become.”

    Except the Supreme Court are not dictators, nor are they arbitrary, nor capricious, nor Satanic, nor Communist.

    “The civil liberties which are to be protected are enumerated in the Constitution, not in the asses of the Supreme Cunts.”

    And what those specific rights mean are have always been subject to interpretation by competing groups; hence, the Founding Fathers recognized the need for a court system to make decisions in times of conflict.

    “The whole “living Constitution” lie is made up by the Satanists/Communists who agree with the judicial dictatorship as it currently advances their agendas.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.