Judge Sulluvan vs Justice Ginsburg...
Ferrous
Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search
What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”
Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0a
Ferrous wrote:
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search
What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”
Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0aThe link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did... (
show quote)
Apparently even they believe they have gotten out of hand.
Ferrous wrote:
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search
What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”
Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0aThe link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did... (
show quote)
It's a corrupt judge, no doubt!
Ferrous
Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA
bilordinary wrote:
Apparently even they believe they have gotten out of hand.
I'll believe that after I see how many of them v**e for Quid Quo Pro Joe..
Or even worse, come out from behind that curtain in the polling booth and publicly support Sleepy Joe.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.