Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (229399)	4/15/2005 5:39:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 1574000

Tim, just because its not what you want, that doesn't mean the judge came to the conclusion on a whim. You might be surprised but I agree Roe vs. Wade wasn't decided on a whim. Years before the decision some ideas deviated from the constitution, that some new decisions pushed the ideas further and so on, eventually leading to Roe. Each new decision was only a modest leap from the last, not something entirely made up out of whole cloth at the time the decision was made. The idea behind this process is the so called "living constitution". Yes......and your objection is? The court doesn't just "invent" something out of thin air. There must be a basis in the law for it to render its opinion. Actually there is no must about it. Other than a constitutional amendment, a higher court overruling it (which can't happen to the USSC) or a constitutional crises if the other branches ignore the ruling a court can decide whatever it wants. It should be limited to what the law says but in practice there is no enforcement mechanism. Yes, there is........actually two things. The ruling has to make legal sense. A judge can't make it up, or he/she will be disbarred. And if there is some part of the ruling that is questionable, there is an appeal process. " I also wouldn't like ruling that would support my ideas but that aren't in the constitution. I can think of a number of court decisions where the result was favorable to my opinion but where the decision was constitutionally questionable." I am not surprised. Your thinking seems to be very unconstitutional. Few ideas are truly unconstitutional but how they get applied in law, or in a court decision can be. Maybe but there is a way of thinking that tends to be unconstitutional. I find that to be true for a number of people who ideologically hail from the right. I generally support individual freedom (nothing unconstitutional about that), but that doesn't mean that the states don't have the constitutional power to restrict individual freedom in any number of ways. They might make some stupid and unjust laws that should be gotten rid of, but if they the states are not forbidden by the constitution from passing such a law there is no justification for the courts to overturn state laws. I'm glad that some of these laws that have been overturned by the courts are now gone but the courts usurped the role of the state legislatures in order to strike down these laws. They did not usurp the role of the state legislatures. Rather, they were 'checking' the state legislatures........which is the way its supposed to work in the checks and balances system. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next