They all said they honor stare decisions and could be relied upon to do the legal thing. That was not true. They were installed to overthrow Roe and they said they would to the Federalists and right-wing senators. The reason they were asked about whether they accept stare decisions is about Roe. They lied.
If the government forces you to give birth to a child,
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
They all said they honor stare decisions and could be relied upon to do the legal thing. That was not true. They were installed to overthrow Roe and they said they would to the Federalists and right-wing senators. The reason they were asked about whether they accept stare decisions is about Roe. They lied.
When did they not honor stare decisis?
Were the Democratic justices installed to uphold Roe? Installed to overturn Rowe might be a desire by conservatives but is not a realistic description of how things work. They did not overturn Roe or ignore precedent.
Many times the court does not rule on big issues such as overturning Roe but on more specific issues dealing with the particular case accepted for review. For example, if Roe was based on viability and medical science has made advances extending viability, a modification would be reasonable.
If if they uphold the MS law of 15 weeks, they have not changed much in practice since about 96% of abortions occur by 15 weeks.
Gawd you're stupid. The Government isn't forcing anyone to give birth to a child. What law is on the books that says you HAVE to give birth shit-for-brains?
]2epo]v[an
Banned
OK, I completely concede the point. Stare decisis is absolutely not the creation of law by the decision of a case but rather only the observance of previous cases as law.
But it's really just a chicken vs egg distinction. I.e. nearest thing to a lack of distinction.
But it's really just a chicken vs egg distinction. I.e. nearest thing to a lack of distinction.
Jurists cannot create law from the bench. Inferring that there is a "separation" clause in the Constitution, or that the Constitution infers the right of women to unfettered abortion, or that dread Scott ensured stare decisis, or that gays have a right to get married.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Not sure it was a promotion as much an observance of natural law. But goes for men also.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Jurists cannot create law from the bench. Inferring that there is a "separation" clause in the Constitution, or that the Constitution infers the right of women to unfettered abortion, or that dread Scott ensured stare decisis, or that gays have a right to get married.
Can't but overwhelmingly do and have. All case law must first be precedent. But even you have to regard legistlated law as higher law in that you even deny the existence of legistlation by judiciary entirely.
When there is no governing case law and no relevant statute and a case must be decided, jurist do, have, and are mandated to decide a case that then becomes case law, and thusly, legistlated from the bench. Your use of "cannot" is just hyperbole.
I have no idea what this word salad means or what you are trying to argue. But let's be very clear, Legislatures pass laws and legislate. Jurists do not.
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
Jurists cannot create law from the bench. Inferring that there is a "separation" clause in the Constitution, or that the Constitution infers the right of women to unfettered abortion, or that dread Scott ensured stare decisis, or that gays have a right to get married.
no one claims there is a separation clause, but everybody with an IQ knows there is a separation clause inferred, when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
no state and no supreme court decision has stated women have the right to an unfettered abortion.
what in the constitution makes you think gays do not have the right to marry?
That is a lie. A really dumb lie. But then, lying is what you do all the time.
Well, that leaves you out doesn't it dimwitted wonder dunce.
There is no inference in the Constitution. It clearly states that Congress make no laws establishing religion. Morons on the left flail and insist that it means more. It doesn't.
There you go lying your dumb ass off again. What restrictions are contained in the California laws?
Marriage was not a legal or Constitutional issue. Marriage is a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is about family and the importance of families in the continuance of a civilized society.
Gays and morons on the left attempt to coopt that reality in a desperate effort to pretend that without a government piece of paper, they can't live happily together. That's moronic.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
I have no idea what this word salad means or what you are trying to argue. But let's be very clear, Legislatures pass laws and legislate. Jurists do not.
Let's be very clear, that's a full frontal denial of fact. If there is case law, there is legislation from the bench. There is no chicken that wasn't born from an egg. There is no case law that wasn't first unprecedented. And I argue even you find your arguments weak and preposterous since you were compelled to resort to ad homs to beg their legitimacy.
Case law is derived from legislation dimwit. Good lord. Try to be somewhat smart will you?
]2epo]v[an
Banned
No it isn't. Every case is unique and despite anyone's ideal, contains facts and circumstances not found in case law. When any of those unique facts are considered the end result is an unprecedented decision. Each new case defines the case law one step further. Each new judgment is another brick in the tower of babyl. Each new case is a newly legistlated law, case law. Each new case becomes a new precedent. Each new case becomes a new law.
Irrefutable fact save for the exception of a few indistinguishable cases or cases decided purely on statute.
The trick of it is not to confuse the exception for the rule.
Faggot
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an
Banned
And regardless of anyone's opinion or ideal, it is a courts duty to both legistlate from the bench and avoid legislating from the bench. Pretty tricky.
The dumbest post yet regarding the law. You really are a magnificent example of someone who knows nothing but bloviates a lot.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
The dumbest post yet regarding the law. You really are a magnificent example of someone who knows nothing but bloviates a lot.
You know you're talking to a pretentious turd witch when they say bloviate while whining about typos...
]2epo]v[an
Banned
No, "case law" is derived from adjudicated cases, sht lick. Otherwise it wouldnt be called "case law" it would be called "statute."
Were do these slime faggots come from? Abortion clinic's arent working.... no reason not to ban tgem.
For instance, prior to state of wisconsin vs daniel kelly, wisconsin had no self defense statute. Self defense in wisconsin was pure case law and backed by no legislation passed by a legislature.
Wisconsin's no sally port law was covered by a case involving a man who was shot entering another man's home to retrieve his hat. The owner was deemed to have used his home as a sally port when he used the entry as an excuse to shoot and kill the decedent.
Wisconsin's stand your ground law was covered by a case of a man charged with murder after refusing to retreat where he'd have to leave his property to be stolen by the decedents. Thusly, when found not guilty, it was cited that compelling the shooter to retreat and sacrifice his property would be considered a deprivation of his dignity as anyone would naturally seek to protect their property from theft.
In one sense case law is law based on legislation but its based on legislation from the bench, not statute or what anyone would normally call legislation, legislation passed by a legislature. Sure, statute may play a part but there's always little variants in each new case and thus chiefly, new legislation from the bench; least till legislatures get off their ass and further legislate, at any rate.
Last edited:
Diesel
Well-known member
Looks at the anti-Christian psychopath talking to himself in the corner
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
guano's here?......