RE: What would it take for you to change? (Full Version)

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



Message


truckinslave -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:20:50 AM)

quote:

Ron Paul yet--Who is winning in the Republican race


Further, unnecessary, proof of the lack of contact the "Mo' Ron" crowd has with anything resembling reality.




truckinslave -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:24:59 AM)

quote:

Do you not know that Scalia and Thomas are both on record saying precedent is unimportant to them if it conflicts with their politics?


That's ridiculous.




truckinslave -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:29:22 AM)

quote:

Specifically stare decisis is the principle that judges must follow precedent


You are unaware that some of the most celebrated SCOTUS decisions overturned precedents?

Prior decisions are not sacrosanct; Justices are not Popes.




DesideriScuri -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:35:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually SCOTUS very rarely overturns a lower court decision. The federal appelate courts rule on thousands of cases per year and SCOTUS takes maybe 20. And in most of those cases where SCOTUS does take the case precedent is either lacking or contradictory.


I love how precedence is all important to progressives when it supports their ideology. Wasn't always the case. And, stare decisis should rarely ever be the sole reliance for SCOTUS decisions.

http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm




subrob1967 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:45:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually SCOTUS very rarely overturns a lower court decision. The federal appelate courts rule on thousands of cases per year and SCOTUS takes maybe 20. And in most of those cases where SCOTUS does take the case precedent is either lacking or contradictory.



Wow, I hope your being paid to be this wrong...

quote:

In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/28/how-many-sotomayor-opinions-were-overturned.html

quote:

Supreme Court has reversed every decision since 2008, including five death penalty cases

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is one of the most powerful courts in the nation, but these days it’s suffering through a major slump.

The court owns the longest losing streak in the country over the past two years at the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviews decisions and corrects mistakes made by the nation’s top appeals courts.

The Supreme Court has examined 15 rulings from the 6th Circuit since 2008 and has thrown out every one of them. Either way, the chances for a reversal are good because the Supreme Court justices wouldn’t take those cases if they thought the appeals court resolved all the issues the first time around.

“It’s not a random sample of cases that they hear,” Solimine said. “They decide what they want to decide.”

And about 70 percent of the time, they decide the lower court got it wrong and reverse the decision.

http://news.lawreader.com/2011/02/20/u-s-supreme-court-has-overruled-the-6th-circuit-court-of-appeals-on-last-15-appeals-straight/

quote:

"Pretty much all courts have a generally high reversal rate before the Supreme Court," said Adam Samaha, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. "The justices have a practice of taking a case for purposes of changing what happened below."

But the 9th Circuit's record this term, with 94 percent of its cases reversed at least in part, extends a long-running trend of being disproportionately overturned. The appeals court -- the only one where a majority of judges were appointed by Democratic presidents -- has had a larger-than-average share of its cases overturned in eight of the past 10 years.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-national/supreme-court-overturning-numerous-9th-us-circuit-court-of-appeals-rulings-348270/#ixzz1y9vqu8ZZ

Are you going to keep some dignity and give up your ill informed argument, or are you going to stick to your guns, even though your wrong?

The Supreme court takes the cases the lower courts get wrong, that's it's fucking job... You seem to think Clarence Thomas is breaking some law, and deserves to be prosecuted, then you claim that the Supremes reverse the majority of the cases it reviews... Now you change it to
quote:

Actually SCOTUS very rarely overturns a lower court decision. The federal appelate courts rule on thousands of cases per year and SCOTUS takes maybe 20. And in most of those cases where SCOTUS does take the case precedent is either lacking or contradictory.


Can you just stop talking bullshit? 1, You haven't shown why you feel Thomas should be prosecuted... You don't like his decisions, too fucking bad. 2, I proved that the Supreme Court reverses the majority of the cases it reviews, so your precedent argument is moot. and 3, Judging by the record of the 6th & 9th Circuit, perhaps the Supreme needs to examine many more cases, because the dumb fucks seem to be wrong quite a lot.





Moonhead -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:51:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
Are you going to keep some dignity and give up your ill informed argument, or are you going to stick to your guns, even though your wrong?

Heeeere's Scotty!
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00786/james-doohan_786478f.jpg[/img]
"Cap'n! The Ironicator cannae take any more!"




Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 9:27:42 AM)

quote:

Were is it written that precedence is the law of the land?


All over the place.

stare decisis --

[Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

The United States has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent.

In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge's ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression. Take, for example, the precedent set in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, the 1973 decision that defined a woman's right to choose Abortion as a fundamental constitutional right. Despite the controversy engendered by the decision, and calls for its repudiation, a majority of the justices, including some conservatives who might have decided Roe differently, have invoked stare decisis in succeeding abortion cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court rarely overturns one of its precedents, but when it does, the ruling usually signifies a new way of looking at an important legal issue. For example, in the landmark case brown v. board of education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), the Supreme Court repudiated the separate-but-equal doctrine it endorsed in plessy v. ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis





JeffBC -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 11:29:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
How about you? If you favor Obama, what would it take for you to vote against him? If you're anti-Obama, what would it take for you to vote for him?

He'd need to recant his position on torture, kidnap, and state sanctioned "disappearing". He'd need to demonstrate a commitment to the constitution. He'd need to start leading for the people rather than for the corporations. He'd need to start looking into the Fed. He'd need to start prosecuting bankers. He'd need to start enforcing the law of the land and supporting the constitution of the united states... the document which gives him legitimacy in his rule.

In short, he'd need to be someone different than he is running for a party other than the democrats.

For the record, I'm a registered democrat and I voted for him last go-around. This time I'm having a hard time discerning any significant difference between him and Romney.




DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 11:58:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually SCOTUS very rarely overturns a lower court decision. The federal appelate courts rule on thousands of cases per year and SCOTUS takes maybe 20. And in most of those cases where SCOTUS does take the case precedent is either lacking or contradictory.



Wow, I hope your being paid to be this wrong...

Actually I am correct in the entirety of the above statement.

55,126 appelate rulings were issued in 2011
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/JudicialBusiness2011_Summary.pdf
SCOTUS took a about 75 cases in 2011. Or for the mathematically challenged 0.1% of all appellate cases.




DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 12:02:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Specifically stare decisis is the principle that judges must follow precedent


You are unaware that some of the most celebrated SCOTUS decisions overturned precedents?

Prior decisions are not sacrosanct; Justices are not Popes.

Actually its mostly just one, Brown v Board which overturned Plassy v Ferguson.

Precedent should be left alone unless there is a very very good reason to overturn it, for instance the above situation which institutionalized racism and segregation. Otherwise the court could revisit and overturn settled cases whenever the winds change.

How would you like it if Scalia was to retire and the first thing his replacement did was cast the deciding vote overturning Heller, Citizen's United and dozens of other cases the right wing majority ruled on in the last several years?




Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 12:22:10 PM)

quote:

For the record, I'm a registered democrat and I voted for him last go-around. This time I'm having a hard time discerning any significant difference between him and Romney.



Don't be silly, Jeff. All us leftists walk in lock-step. Everybody knows that.

Or think they do.




papassion -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 8:47:01 AM)


One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. We are seeing European countries with Liberal policy and ideas accumulating unsustainable debt that will gaurantee bankruptcy. How much healthcare and nanny state goodies can a bankrupt government deliver?

Why would we want to follow liberal ideas that have been shown to be PROVEN failures? Remember the definition of insanity.

The Republicans have been called the "party of no" because they oppose Obama's liberal ideas that, in real time, in Europe are being PROVEN as failures.




mnottertail -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 8:49:21 AM)

And we all can relate to that definition of Al's.  That is why we are quite taken aback by the shopworn and multfailured borrow and spend policies of the teabaggers.




Lucylastic -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 10:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. We are seeing European countries with Liberal policy and ideas accumulating unsustainable debt that will gaurantee bankruptcy. How much healthcare and nanny state goodies can a bankrupt government deliver?

Why would we want to follow liberal ideas that have been shown to be PROVEN failures? Remember the definition of insanity.

The Republicans have been called the "party of no" because they oppose Obama's liberal ideas that, in real time, in Europe are being PROVEN as failures.

Have a look at banking crisis.... Billions to bail out banks in the UK, not healthcare, its simple, you dont know the facts
learn something, you can google it




DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 11:30:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. We are seeing European countries with Liberal policy and ideas accumulating unsustainable debt that will gaurantee bankruptcy. How much healthcare and nanny state goodies can a bankrupt government deliver?

We are? Last I checked Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the most socialist states in Europe, were doing better than the rest of the continent. Only states with significant corruption problems, Greece, are in serious trouble and only countries moving from third to first world status, Spain and Ireland, are points of concern.





Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 1:43:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. We are seeing European countries with Liberal policy and ideas accumulating unsustainable debt that will gaurantee bankruptcy. How much healthcare and nanny state goodies can a bankrupt government deliver?

Why would we want to follow liberal ideas that have been shown to be PROVEN failures? Remember the definition of insanity.

The Republicans have been called the "party of no" because they oppose Obama's liberal ideas that, in real time, in Europe are being PROVEN as failures.

What a load of crap.

A few small countries with poor structural economies, not the whole of "liberal" Europe.

Let's pick countries like Germany instead, and call this a whopping success! Just as silly.

Or maybe it's proof that countries with mountains and oceans aren't financially liable, proving mountains and oceans as failures.




mnottertail -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 1:46:37 PM)

I bet if we looked at it, I mean really dug into the data and sifted and looked at it, the commonality is olive products.

Go $5 on it, MM?




Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 1:53:46 PM)

Like in Ireland and Iceland?




mnottertail -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 2:08:19 PM)

I then.  Ireland, Iceland, Italy, SpaIn, GreIse (norwegian and not for the country)...or socialism like Obama and Barney Frank?

Or was it indeed bubbles and derivatives, no fiscal discipline, no voersight, borrow and spend? 




Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/19/2012 2:12:29 PM)

quote:

Or was it indeed bubbles and derivatives, no fiscal discipline, no voersight, borrow and spend?


No more calls, please---we have a Winner!!!!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625