The Rule Of Law Is Being Shredded By Bias...Court Rulings Aren't Going To Mean Anything
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
How about you people trying to undo a constitutionally elected President.?
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
You l*****ts know all about biased courts as you send cases to west coast courts to fight Trump with their l*****t biases. Then he appeals to a normal court and wins.
woodguru wrote:
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges.
Of course, liberal administrations use an unbiased process in their se******ns. ROTFLMAO....
byronglimish wrote:
How about you people trying to undo a constitutionally elected President.?
Listening to a l*****ts talk about problems associated with bias is like hearing an arsonist lecture about fire prevention, as Lindsey Graham has said.
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
Of course, the only good court decisions are the ones you agree with. Such a phony.
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
WTF is this? How the hell you managed to tie our courts to an impeachment process is anybody's guess. Our justice system deals with civil and criminal cases, impeachment, OTH, is a political process. The progressive left's concept of American Rule of Law is a travesty, a dangerous travesty that, in fact, undermines, even destroys, the American system of justice and shreds our Constitution.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers debated at great length how an impeachment process should be conducted. James Madison and the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the responsibility for trying an impeachment should be that of the Supreme Court. After further debate, the framers moved that responsibility to the senate. For obvious reasons.
It’s true that the Supreme Court has some link to impeachment insofar as the Constitution provides for the chief justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the Senate trial in an impeachment case. But Justice Joseph Story argued in “Commentaries on the Constitution” that the chief justice’s role is mainly due to “the necessity of excluding the vice president from the chair, when he might have a manifest interest, which would destroy his impartiality.”
In
Nixon vs US, the Supreme Court barred the possibility that it could serve as a court of appeals for impeachment. This ruling effectively barred all the lower courts from involvement in a POLITICAL proceeding. Black’s point is less that the constitutional history and text show that the courts have no role to play here—though he does also argue this—and more that confusion on the matter could itself be fatal in the most extreme situation. What if military commanders are placed in the position of deciding which president is rightfully the chief executive?
For those among us who love our nation as our founders intended her to be, who embrace the fair and impartial system of justice our founders established, and who truly want to see our nation restored to the most brilliant and unique concept of self governance ever established on planet earth, I strongly recommend that any and all l*****t butchery and demonization of our American way of life be given its due consideration, which, I my opinion, is either to ignore this travesty, or, figuratively speaking, print it out and wipe your asses with it.
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
Well you should be well versed in bias as you a so biased yourself ha ha ha !!!!!!
woodguru wrote:
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings is ramping up. The past was ruled in a way that for the most part when a court decision was made that was well constructed on case law and merit people accepted the rulings. The reason judges go to the trouble they do to cite case law they are basing their decisions on is so that people can see that it was based on the law. It's one thing to reject a ruling that has vague or undefined applications, it's another to reject a sound ruling because the court didn't "side" with a case that is actually weak or faulty.
Courts cannot be biased, yet we are seeing higher courts, district and appeals courts that are being loaded with hard conservative judges. A hard right or hard left judge comes by that ranking because they have exhibited enough bias away from the center of established law that they have no problem bringing their hard biases to their courts. Judges are not supposed to bring their personal beliefs, politics, or prejudices to the court. A lower court that perfectly cites the law and adheres to it right down the line should not be overturned by an appeals court that isn't afraid to apply their own biased version of the law.
We are seeing courts get used in a way that the ones who stick to the law get jumped over to an appeals court, which even when they uphold the lower court will be jumped right to the supreme court. That court needs to be able to adhere to established law more so than any other court, and that will not happen until the makeup of the court is when it if filled with centrist judges, judges that have displayed a history of adhering right to the center of the law.
Appeals courts are about determining if the law was adhered to, not shifting the lines of established law, and the supreme court is especially reliant on centrist judges.
And now we are seeing a GOP that is simply disregarding rulings they don't like. Judges determining the rule of law as pertains to turning over documents isn't that difficult. Executive privilege isn't that hard to decipher, it has rules and definitions, and it isn't the place of white house attorneys to see it from trump's perspective, they work for the government and any first year law student could apply the laws. The white house legal staff is not there to protect the president, they are there to define and protect the law.
Examples...of course...that would be McConnell pissing all over the rules and constitution when he simply said Obama was not going to seat any supreme court judge because he had only a year left in his term. Then he has the gall to say the same "rules" or principles he applied there would of course not apply to trump if Ginsberg needed to be replaced.
A blatant disregard for courts and court rulings i... (
show quote)
Woodie, you're so backed up you're eyes are brown. Mike
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
