Legal Deadlines Debated (Full Version)

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



Message

KenDckey -> Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 3:50:17 PM)

Congress set a dead line on appeals when the VA says no you can't be helped to our wounded warriors.  The 120 day deadline is being intrepreted as a hard limit and regardless of the reason, no one can get an extension.

The Supreme Court is debating that issue now.   I was wondering what everyone's opinion might be.  Some might see it as legislating from the bench, others as the right thing to do if the Supreme Court rules in favor of our vets.   Conversely, others may see it as grossly unfair if they don't change the rules.

Your Opinion?

Oh   mine is that the Congress messed up and should change the rule and make it retroactive.



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 3:51:25 PM)

Opps   for got to put the cite in    

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-12-03-supreme-court-veteran-disability-claims_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 3:56:15 PM)

How does anyone know when something from the past will affect them? If they put a 100 year limit on it that should about cover it for the current life expectancy.

This is one of the reasons armed conflicts are a bad idea because the costs are long lasting. It's convenient to say there should be a time limit on the sudden realisation that you can't push something to the back of your mind anymore.



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 6:11:23 PM)

Sorry   Maybe I didn't make my thoughts clear.    I was refering to the debate about the time limit.  Not what the time limit was for.   You know   the broader issues and impact upon other legislated deadlines.      Please comment.



TheHeretic -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 6:14:43 PM)

I think it is very wrong for the VA to assume such a stance. Our armed forces prize those who do not quit, who will not submit to weakness, who will keep going until the point of physical collapse.

If they aren't going to be able to make it on their own after all, they need the time to reach that decision.



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 6:18:04 PM)

Heritic   I agree with you that the VA's stance is totally wrong, however what do you think of the broader issue   Legislating from the bench or not to legislate from the bench?



TheHeretic -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 7:00:42 PM)

I'm a big fan of checks and balances, KenD. I think it is better when legislators create laws, the executive carries them out, and the jurists answer the questions, but there are moments when flexibility must come into play to achieve the best outcome.



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 8:45:49 PM)

I wont argue that in the least.   I have always believed that when a law if flawed, then totally get rid of it.   Don't change it.   Don't modify it.   Don't intrepret it.  If it is flawed then the judiciary should get rid of it.   If the Executive thinks it flawed, go ahead and enforce it and take it directly to the Judiciary.   don't wait for someone to sue over it.   Go for it.  

But in practice it doesn't work that way.   All to many times, the judicary rules so narrowly that it is impossible to totally understand what is going on.   If as in this particular example, the Supreme Court rules that they can go ahead and file and doesn't throw the law completly off the books, they are in fact legislating from the bench.   If they throw it off the books, then there is no issue.   They did their job.   And here is my worry.   Are they going to throw the law completely off the books or are they going to keep the law and create new law (case law - or legilating from the bench)



TheHeretic -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 9:09:04 PM)

Like the other branches of gov't, the courts do seem sometimes to have become way too impressed with their power, KenD.

Checking their ability, somehow, to issue such rulings, without simultaneously checking excesses elsewhere, would probably create more problems than it solved, though



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 9:19:06 PM)

Yeah.   And there is the problem   To straighten out one sin, you create another. 

I also wonder how the judicary thinks about its powers.  The true inner thoughts.  Would be interesting to find out.



Musicmystery -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 9:21:24 PM)

quote:

Checking their ability, somehow, to issue such rulings


The legislature always has that power.

Pass clearer laws, get clearer results.

Don't like the results, pass different laws.

As the laws are often more political than expedient, however, with deliberate wiggle room, the courts are left to take up the slack.

And judges CAN be removed--not easy, but can be done.





tazzygirl -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/3/2010 9:29:56 PM)

~FR

It seems to be that the SC is almost lackadaisical in what they will hear as opposed to previous years. Anyone else get that feeling or am i missing something?



KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 6:46:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~FR

It seems to be that the SC is almost lackadaisical in what they will hear as opposed to previous years. Anyone else get that feeling or am i missing something?


I am not sure anyone ever understood their agenda



rulemylife -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 8:00:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Heritic   I agree with you that the VA's stance is totally wrong, however what do you think of the broader issue   Legislating from the bench or not to legislate from the bench?


First, make up your mind what you want to talk about because you have gone back and forth.

There is no such thing as legislating from the bench.

It's just one of those clever little buzzwords that has become part of the Republican platform.

Courts exist to interpret laws and apply them.




KenDckey -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 8:04:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Sorry   Maybe I didn't make my thoughts clear.    I was refering to the debate about the time limit.  Not what the time limit was for.   You know   the broader issues and impact upon other legislated deadlines.      Please comment.


I did that   go back and read the posts again.  

As for the courts, I believe they do more than that.



rulemylife -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 8:11:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

As for the courts, I believe they do more than that.



Then elaborate.

What is it you believe they do? 

Give me an example of this legislating from the bench.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 11:19:18 AM)

I dont think there should be ANY time limit. those guys and gals put their ass (and other parts) on the line for us everydamnday. We, in turn, need to take care of them when they come home injured. To say that an injury has to appear within a certain number of days is ludicrous. There are chemical agents that you can be exposed to that cause cancer, for instance, that have an incubation time of a decade or better.

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

That is Honor




rulemylife -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 11:26:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I dont think there should be ANY time limit. those guys and gals put their ass (and other parts) on the line for us everydamnday. We, in turn, need to take care of them when they come home injured. To say that an injury has to appear within a certain number of days is ludicrous. There are chemical agents that you can be exposed to that cause cancer, for instance, that have an incubation time of a decade or better.

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

That is Honor


I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I was asking Ken to clarify what issue he wanted to talk about.

He seems to be using that as an example and he wants to talk about judicial influence.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Legal Deadlines Debated (12/4/2010 11:30:11 AM)

As an aside, maybe if veteran care got REALLY damned expensive and BEYOND first rate, 2 things would happen:

1. People would be more willing to sign up knowing that in the unlikely event something DID happen, they would be taken care of.

2. Those assholes in Washington would think twice or 3 times before invading another country because it might help out their campaign contributors.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125