Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Legal Deadlines Debated


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Legal Deadlines Debated Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 3:50:17 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 3:51:25 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 3:56:15 PM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline 		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.


< Message edited by SL4V3M4YB3 -- 12/3/2010 3:59:23 PM >

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 6:11:23 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 6:14:43 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 6:18:04 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 7:00:42 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 8:45:49 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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)

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 9:09:04 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 9:19:06 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 9:21:24 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.




< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 12/3/2010 9:47:50 PM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/3/2010 9:29:56 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		~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?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 6:46:59 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
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

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 8:00:29 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 8:04:19 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 8:11:58 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 11:19:18 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		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


(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 11:26:06 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Legal Deadlines Debated - 12/4/2010 11:30:11 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Legal Deadlines Debated Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.098