APP - walmart employees need food stamps to survive

Return of Dune said:
Can a judicial review block legislation? Yes or no?

Shut the fuck up you low life sophist.
Click to expand...

of course it can. you're too retarded to realize that blocking and passing are not the same thing. the topic was "passing" legislation and to bolster that claim you throw in 'blocking' legislation as proof that it takes all 3 branches to pass any legislation. i can't even believe i still have to explain to you that blocking and passing are not the same thing.

i'll try to dumb it down for you one last time. you watch football i assume. when a ball is thrown or passed and then blocked, do you call blocking the ball, passing the ball? no you wouldn't, because they are two completely different actions.

poor dune, trying so very hard to look smart and failing so badly.
 
Yurt said:
of course it can. you're too retarded to realize that blocking and passing are not the same thing. the topic was "passing" legislation and to bolster that claim you throw in 'blocking' legislation as proof that it takes all 3 branches to pass any legislation. i can't even believe i still have to explain to you that blocking and passing are not the same thing.

i'll try to dumb it down for you one last time. you watch football i assume. when a ball is thrown or passed and then blocked, do you call blocking the ball, passing the ball? no you wouldn't, because they are two completely different actions.

poor dune, trying so very hard to look smart and failing so badly.
Click to expand...

You assume incorrectly, so your sports analogy has as little value as the rest of your argument.

Poor yurt, trying so very hard to win yet losing so badly.
 
Return of Dune said:
You assume incorrectly, so your sports analogy has as little value as the rest of your argument.

Poor yurt, trying so very hard to win yet losing so badly.
Click to expand...

why did you bring up judicial review in RESPONSE to a post about "passing" legislation and in defense of don's statement. go ahead dune, explain that.

lol
 
Yurt said:
i'm not surprised that dune thanked for this. unfortunately for you, you have made a glaring error. one of our branches of government does not pass legislation, i'll let you figure out which one. further, what party had control of the entire legislative branch and executive branch for 2 years starting 2009?
Click to expand...

Return of Dune said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review



Judicial review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.
Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state.
Click to expand...

somehow dune wants people to believe that he posted about judicial review in response to the above post to prove i was wrong. how exactly did judicial review prove i was wrong and what what exactly was wrong.
 
Yurt said:
you said you brought up judicial review to prove me wrong. yet you can't even state what i said that was wrong and how judicial review proves me wrong.

nice one liar.
Click to expand...
I have already answered your stupid questions repeatedly. You act like you are talking to a child.

Don was right, you are wrong. I realize you will never admit it and I accept that.

Now go tell your mommy that the mean dune fellow made you feel foolish, and shut the fuck up.
 
Return of Dune said:
I have already answered your stupid questions repeatedly. You act like you are talking to a child.

Don was right, you are wrong. I realize you will never admit it and I accept that.

Now go tell your mommy that the mean dune fellow made you feel foolish, and shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

you have not specifically answered my question. you can't point to a single thing i said that is wrong. and now you've proven you're a retard for claiming that don is correct in that it takes all 3 branches of government to pass legislation.

i suggest you go learn about how our government really works. and dune, you've made a huge fool out of yourself for claiming this. it is a pity you can't comprehend that the judicial branch is not involved in passing legislation. retard
 
Yurt said:
you have not specifically answered my question. you can't point to a single thing i said that is wrong. and now you've proven you're a retard for claiming that don is correct in that it takes all 3 branches of government to pass legislation.

i suggest you go learn about how our government really works. and dune, you've made a huge fool out of yourself for claiming this. it is a pity you can't comprehend that the judicial branch is not involved in passing legislation. retard
Click to expand...

Lick me.
 
while the judicial branch does not 'pass' legislation, it does pass on legislation when called upon

in my post regarding the three branches, i mistyped - i meant the two houses of congress and the president, hence the 'three'
 
Don Quixote said:
while the judicial branch does not 'pass' legislation, it does pass on legislation when called upon

in my post regarding the three branches, i mistyped - i meant the two houses of congress and the president, hence the 'three'
Click to expand...

thanks for clearing up that what you said was a mistake. obviously dune screwed up in defending your mistake and showed a clear lack of understanding of the isssues.

i don't understand your first sentence though. you say they don't 'pass' legislation, then you say they do pass legislation when called upon. my understanding of the judicial system is, the supreme court is not called upon, cases are filed and the court can decide to take the case or not take the case, this is called writ of certiorari. there are some cases that don't fall under cert, such as cases of original jurisdiction.

the judicial branch does not pass legislation at all. their role is to create case law and to determine the validity of laws that the legislative branch passed. if the law is deemed valid, it is not deemed 'passed' by the judicial branch, rather, it is deemed to withstand judicial scrutiny. case law is not legislative law and in fact can be overturned by certain legislative actions, such as amending the constitution.
 
Yurt said:
thanks for clearing up that what you said was a mistake. obviously dune screwed up in defending your mistake and showed a clear lack of understanding of the isssues.

i don't understand your first sentence though. you say they don't 'pass' legislation, then you say they do pass legislation when called upon. my understanding of the judicial system is, the supreme court is not called upon, cases are filed and the court can decide to take the case or not take the case, this is called writ of certiorari. there are some cases that don't fall under cert, such as cases of original jurisdiction.

the judicial branch does not pass legislation at all. their role is to create case law and to determine the validity of laws that the legislative branch passed. if the law is deemed valid, it is not deemed 'passed' by the judicial branch, rather, it is deemed to withstand judicial scrutiny. case law is not legislative law and in fact can be overturned by certain legislative actions, such as amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

Lick me Yurtroll
 
Return of Dune said:
Lick me Yurtroll
Click to expand...

translation:

instead of actually debating my points, discussing yurt's points and explaining how yurt was wrong.... i will just repeatedly INSULT in a forum that is supposed to be free of insults and solely about debate and discussion

way to add value to the forum dune, kind of ironic from a guy who whines when others insult they they offer nothing to the forum that you have continued to not discuss the issue and solely insult in the APP forum. or shall we say, hypocritical......
 
To say the SCOTUS doesn't pass legislation is merely smoke and mirrors, legislation that any dimwit disagrees with can be brought to the court and thrown out. All you need is five votes. So when legislation is thrown out does the legislation vanish into thin air and is no more, or is the denial of legislation another form of legislation? I would argue it is another form of legislation as it grants a right that only exists because of the ruling. Think Plessy and Brown. It's nice to wipe one's hands as Caesar did but law is created in society and law is nothing more than legislation on another level.
 
midcan5 said:
To say the SCOTUS doesn't pass legislation is merely smoke and mirrors, legislation that any dimwit disagrees with can be brought to the court and thrown out. All you need is five votes. So when legislation is thrown out does the legislation vanish into thin air and is no more, or is the denial of legislation another form of legislation? I would argue it is another form of legislation as it grants a right that only exists because of the ruling. Think Plessy and Brown. It's nice to wipe one's hands as Caesar did but law is created in society and law is nothing more than legislation on another level.
Click to expand...

actually, it is the truth. your logic is: statutes and the constitution are the same, because well, they are both laws. using your logic, we can just say iraq was a democracy under saddam because afterall...he was elected and said his government is a democracy.

the differences are important and matter. our country has three branches of government and only two are involved in passing legislation. the simple fact is, the legislation is deemed passed once it passes both houses and the president signs it. judicial scrutiny exist not as legislation or to pass laws, but rather a CHECK AND BALANCE on the legislature's power to PASS and create legislative law. case law or common law is not the same as legislative law. therefore, it is wholly inaccurate to claim the judicial branch is NECESSARY to pass laws. that is what was claimed and that is not true as not all laws receive judicial scrutiny.
 
Allow me to use my own logic, Saddam can call his dictatorship whatever he likes. Stalin called his the same, but were they democracies, of course not, that touches my point. 'Separate but equal' is legislation in that it creates a real environment and not an ideal one. Was the court ruling legislation, strictly speaking no, did it amount to a form of legislation, yes, as it affected the lives of American citizens. It legislated behaviors from the bench. And that was the counter point you seem to have missed above. Law exists in a community and while lawyers and judges assume formalistic interpretations, there are none as the reversals prove too often. Even Moses' stone tablets have exceptions. LOL
 
midcan5 said:
Allow me to use my own logic, Saddam can call his dictatorship whatever he likes. Stalin called his the same, but were they democracies, of course not, that touches my point. 'Separate but equal' is legislation in that it creates a real environment and not an ideal one. Was the court ruling legislation, strictly speaking no, did it amount to a form of legislation, yes, as it affected the lives of American citizens. It legislated behaviors from the bench. And that was the counter point you seem to have missed above. Law exists in a community and while lawyers and judges assume formalistic interpretations, there are none as the reversals prove too often. Even Moses' stone tablets have exceptions. LOL
Click to expand...

that says it all

if you can't admit to yourself there are different ways to create law, then i can't help you accept the truth. because you actually admit i'm right, but then dance and spin the issue and create YOUR own interpretation of the law.
 
Yurt said:
thanks for clearing up that what you said was a mistake. obviously dune screwed up in defending your mistake and showed a clear lack of understanding of the isssues.

i don't understand your first sentence though. you say they don't 'pass' legislation, then you say they do pass legislation when called upon. my understanding of the judicial system is, the supreme court is not called upon, cases are filed and the court can decide to take the case or not take the case, this is called writ of certiorari. there are some cases that don't fall under cert, such as cases of original jurisdiction.

the judicial branch does not pass legislation at all. their role is to create case law and to determine the validity of laws that the legislative branch passed. if the law is deemed valid, it is not deemed 'passed' by the judicial branch, rather, it is deemed to withstand judicial scrutiny. case law is not legislative law and in fact can be overturned by certain legislative actions, such as amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

i noticed that you did not address my refutation of your statement that the dems had control of congress for two years - oops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top