Pennsylvania Judge Rules Cruz Natural Born Citizen (Page 2): ================== Not so, the SC Judges interpret the laws, and if their interpretation with majority of them concords to...

Radiance3

Dummy Boy wrote:

Revision and interpretation are not synonyms...the Supreme Court interprets, it does not revise. Revision is elicited by an amendment. Just because a judge agrees with how the Constitution is to be interpreted doesn't make them right or wrong by themselves. If the constitution isn't clear, an amendment must be proposed the legislatures.

==================
Not so, the SC Judges interpret the laws, and if their interpretation with majority of them concords to the liberal interpretation, that becomes the law. That was why SC Justice Scalia died defending the 2nd amendment rights of the American people. If not for Scalia the law could have been interpreted by the liberal judges already.

That was what happened to the ObamaCare made into law. The interpretation of Chief Justice made it into law. But that will be debated again and turned back as soon as we have more SC Judges who don't use politics against the intents of the law.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Liberty Tree wrote:

You think everyone who is not an ELWNJ is evil.

???????????

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Radiance3 wrote:

==================
Not so, the SC Judges interpret the laws, and if their interpretation with majority of them concords to the liberal interpretation....

What makes an interpretation liberal, and who says that their interpretation CAN'T be liberal?

Where in the constitution does it say that decisions by the highest court must be judged by only conservative ________ wh**ever?

Politics, do you use politics to determine what I am saying;;?...I'm anxious to hear about your non-political, moral, liberal gobbledegook solutioin to that...since everything you just said violates your own rules.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Dummy Boy wrote:

Revision and interpretation are not synonyms...the Supreme Court interprets, it does not revise. Revision is elicited by an amendment. Just because a judge agrees with how the Constitution is to be interpreted doesn't make them right or wrong by themselves. If the constitution isn't clear, an amendment must be proposed the legislatures.

Although I am not as far left as some, I am definitely a liberal. And I have never, and would never, advocate for a 100% left-leaning court. I think balance is needed and healthy disagreements help the court land decisions that are good for the entire country.

Since our country is made up of conservatives and liberals and everything in between, I see no reason why every persuasion should not have some voice on the court. This is the very essence of democracy.

Radiance3

Dummy Boy wrote:

Revision and interpretation are not synonyms...the Supreme Court interprets, it does not revise. Revision is elicited by an amendment. Just because a judge agrees with how the Constitution is to be interpreted doesn't make them right or wrong by themselves. If the constitution isn't clear, an amendment must be proposed the legislatures.

=============
Clearly portrays a liberal brain. When unanimous of the judges interprets the law, their interpretation become the law. In some cases, other SC judges revises it back to the original intentions of the law.

It is no point arguing with a liberal brain like yours. Nope not in my case and not in my time.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Radiance3 wrote:

=============
Clearly portrays a liberal brain. When unanimous of the judges interprets the law, their interpretation become the law. In some cases, other SC judges revises it back to the original intentions of the law.

It is no point arguing with a liberal brain like yours. Nope not in my case and not in my time.

There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know how to argue....what would be the point in going backwards, provide one case where the court went backwards....just one.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Dummy Boy wrote:

There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know how to argue....what would be the point in going backwards, provide one case where the court went backwards....just one.

Indeed "Stare Decisis" or "to stand by that which is decided" is an important part of our legal system.

Although it is rare, SCOTUS does sometimes overturn precedents already decided. As in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) whereby SCOTUS overturned its previous decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), making certain sexual acts between consenting adults legal when their previous decision had been to find them illegal.

And in fact overturning previous law is exactly what conservatives want to do to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which protected a woman's right to choose what happened to her own body.

I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but the fact is that the courts do sometimes reverse previous decisions, satisfying some and disappointing others.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

PaulPisces wrote:

Indeed "Stare Decisis" or "to stand... (show quote)

The supreme court doesn't reverse the law, legislators do that. They INTERPRET the law.

Where Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional and declare it invalid.

Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court.

Radiance3

Dummy Boy wrote:

There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know how to argue....what would be the point in going backwards, provide one case where the court went backwards....just one.

===============
DEFINITELY NOT WORTH OF MY TIME!

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Radiance3 wrote:

===============
DEFINITELY NOT WORTH OF MY TIME!

Good, go twiddle your fingers someplace else, like pre-school.

Radiance3

Dummy Boy wrote:

Good, go twiddle your fingers someplace else, like pre-school.

==============
This lunatic is definitely not worth my time!

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Radiance3 wrote:

==============
This lunatic is definitely not worth my time!

Then why do you keep responding?

...cuz you're about 5 years old...

chuck slusser

unless I read the consitution wrong ...THAT TO BE A NATIVE AMERICAN, ONE MUST BE BORN OFF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS ,AND BORN ON ANERICAN SOIL....i'm just saying

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

chuck slusser wrote:

unless I read the consitution wrong ...THAT TO BE A NATIVE AMERICAN, ONE MUST BE BORN OFF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS ,AND BORN ON ANERICAN SOIL....i'm just saying

I like your last name, I have to say it slow.....it's sounds like a trombone going from high to low.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

chuck slusser wrote:

unless I read the consitution wrong ...THAT TO BE A NATIVE AMERICAN, ONE MUST BE BORN OFF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS ,AND BORN ON ANERICAN SOIL....i'm just saying

Therein lies the challenge, Chuck. The Constitution requires, among other things, that a candidate for president be a "natural born citizen." But The Constitution does not define what that means. Hence all the controversy, since there are about as many opinions as to what "natural born citizen" means as there are people whom one asks.