Patriot Act Challenge

Patriot Act Challenge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:16:01 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101101/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_patriot_act The Supreme Court is refusing to take up a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Patriot Act from a lawyer who was once wrongly suspected in deadly terrorist bombings in Spain. Not so sure that is right. Definately don't understand the court is pretty much equally divided politically.

slvemike4u -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:21:19 AM)
Bullshit...there is a decided conservative bent to this court.

KenDckey -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:24:31 AM)
See and there I disagree. I think they have 4 and 4 with a swing that goes either way. Otherwise they probably would have overturned Roe v Wade My thoughts

mnottertail -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:28:01 AM)
why overturn in the face of no new challenge on new grounds? we dont want these fuckin clowns legislating from the bench any more than they are.

KenDckey -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:29:01 AM)
Yeah I hear that too.

slvemike4u -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:30:38 AM)
Okay,there seems to be a lack of knowledge concerning how the court actually works....they do not sit around and decide which of the court's previous rulings need overturning. Before they can rule on any given matter it must be brought before them...and that is a process that starts in the lower courts....and than works its way thru the system.....finally to land on the doorstep of the Supreme Court....where they might or migh not choose to hear the case. To determine the leaning of the court one looks at its recent decisions(google is your friend)....looking at established law,such as Roe v Wade....and ascertaining that the present court is liberal leaning is assinine.

tazzygirl -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey See and there I disagree. I think they have 4 and 4 with a swing that goes either way. Otherwise they probably would have overturned Roe v Wade My thoughts According to these polls last year, the country does not want Roe overturned. There would be one hell of a fight if that attempt is ever made.

slvemike4u -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:36:06 AM)
Well shit....I don't want the Court deciding cases based on polls either....lol.

habonia -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:36:06 AM)
I am afraid that I will have to agree with those who say this is a conservative court. In fact some sources have said that the current court is the most conservative court we have had in a decades. While the decisions of the court have not all been ULTRA conservative, they do tend that way. From a July New York Times article, quote: "Four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and, most conservative of all, Clarence Thomas. (The other two were Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist.) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing justice on the current court, is in the top 10." Refusing to hear a case that is clearly a constitutional issue is a ploy of a body with an agenda. Of course, that's just my opinion ;)

mnottertail -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:38:45 AM)
I am not gonna start crying agenda here, I would like to know the grounds that they decided not to hear it upon and the vote.

tazzygirl -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 11:45:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well shit....I don't want the Court deciding cases based on polls either....lol. Neither do i! lol... just heading off the always predictable "People dont want abortions" argument that was sure to come.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:01:15 PM)
What was the vote on cert? It only takes 4 to have a case heard.

habonia -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:15:07 PM)
Upon further reading, is appears that this case was refused by the SCOTUS because the man involved had already accepted a $2 million dollar settlement from the government and thus effectively had no further legal standing. If he wanted to challenge the Patriot Act, as well someone should, he should not have accepted the settlement.

Trekkie -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: habonia Upon further reading, is appears that this case was refused by the SCOTUS because the man involved had already accepted a $2 million dollar settlement from the government and thus effectively had no further legal standing. If he wanted to challenge the Patriot Act, as well someone should, he should not have accepted the settlement. Even though the settlement he accepted specifically included the right to challenge the Constitutionality of the law?

Musicmystery -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:19:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: habonia Upon further reading, is appears that this case was refused by the SCOTUS because the man involved had already accepted a $2 million dollar settlement from the government and thus effectively had no further legal standing. If he wanted to challenge the Patriot Act, as well someone should, he should not have accepted the settlement. Ah. Now that makes sense. quote: Even though the settlement he accepted specifically included the right to challenge the Constitutionality of the law? Sigh. Or not...

tazzygirl -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:29:20 PM)
The settlement can say whatever it wants. Does that mean the Supreme Court has to accept the wording of that settlement?

Musicmystery -> RE: Patriot Act Challenge (11/1/2010 12:31:57 PM)
They don't have to hear anything. And we're always going to armchair quarterback them. I'm cynical about this court, and I'm not surprised when they don't see such issues as worthy. But I do see the settlement as a barrier.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125