Politics and religion.

[wombat2u2004]

Seriously though i never raise
A hand to puck...

My wife does.
Especially when I stretch Glad Wrap over her toilet seat.

[lizbud]

Finally, the Ladies will get to speak up loud & clear. Let them hear you
Ladies. We are listening.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2050179.story

[wombat2u2004]

Finally, the Ladies will get to speak up loud & clear. Let them hear you
Ladies. We are listening.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2050179.story

Really ?? You don't have "Separation of the Powers" in your Constitution ??
What has all of this Liberal/Conservative tripe got to do with the Judiciary ???

[Puckstop31]

Really ?? You don't have "Separation of the Powers" in your Constitution ??
What has all of this Liberal/Conservative tripe got to do with the Judiciary ???

A most excellent question Mr. Wom.


Perhaps Mrs. Lizbud would care to explain? She, afterall, was the person who shared the op-ed piece.

[lizbud]

Really ?? You don't have "Separation of the Powers" in your Constitution ??
What has all of this Liberal/Conservative tripe got to do with the Judiciary ???

Wom,

The "separation of powers" has nothing whatever to do with the "tenor
of the debate" at the Supreme Court.

as for the Conservative tripe heard during deliberations, there is entirely too
much of it by a few loud mouth Justices with no equally strong Liberal voices to balance out the rhetoric. IMO.

[RICHARD]

as for the Conservative tripe heard during deliberations, there is entirely too
much of it by a few loud mouth Justices with no equally strong Liberal voices to balance out the rhetoric. IMO.

I love tripe and I eat a bowl of menudo whenever I can.

[wombat2u2004]

Wom,

The "separation of powers" has nothing whatever to do with the "tenor
of the debate" at the Supreme Court.

as for the Conservative tripe heard during deliberations, there is entirely too
much of it by a few loud mouth Justices with no equally strong Liberal voices to balance out the rhetoric. IMO.

What are they doing arguing about politics then ???
The judiciary is there to apply the law.

[lizbud]

What are they doing arguing about politics then ???
The judiciary is there to apply the law.

The Justices are not arguing,they are espousing their own personal
ideas of what is right or proper under the law. I am beyond tired of hearing
only the Conservative definitionss & look forward to a little more balance
in the debates.

[Puckstop31]

What are they doing arguing about politics then ???
The judiciary is there to apply the law.

A good question Wom.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."


---

Over the years, the SCOTUS has taken on a role of interpreting the Constitution. As you can see, that is not a power directly given it, but it makes sense that it would become so. (The Marshall Court, the case of Marbury vs. Madison was influential.) But herin lies the the key... The Court is supposed to ONLY decide if a law is Constitutional, not to actually make law. Naturally, a ruling they make could motivate Congress to change or create a new law, but a SCOTUS ruling does not create law.

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)


To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

[mrspunkysmom]

A good question Wom.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."



*************************

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)


To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

I don't usually post here, so apologies if I step on any feet.

I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.

Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.

Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.

We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.

[wombat2u2004]

A good question Wom.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."


---

Over the years, the SCOTUS has taken on a role of interpreting the Constitution. As you can see, that is not a power directly given it, but it makes sense that it would become so. (The Marshall Court, the case of Marbury vs. Madison was influential.) But herin lies the the key... The Court is supposed to ONLY decide if a law is Constitutional, not to actually make law. Naturally, a ruling they make could motivate Congress to change or create a new law, but a SCOTUS ruling does not create law.

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)


To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

Fair enough. You all have a system that you believe works, if you are happy with that, then I say fair enough.

For me, a true Separation of the Powers does not allow judicial interference in political disputes (Bush v Gore), apportionment and re-districting (Baker v Carr). These disputes should handled by the Legislature or the Executive.
The Supreme Court has an increasingly central role in American governance.
Is that a good thing ???? Have the framers of your Constitution given YOU the right to amend the Constitution ??? They probably have.
Those positions tho are filled with politically appointed judges who stick their heads into the political arena, and themselves creating Legislation and amending the Constitution based on their own political ideals.

Dunno if that is a good thing Pucky. Here, the Powers all have their own responsibilities. The Executive and the Legislature are pretty well intertwined,
but the Federal Judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches.

Yeah, I read Marbury v Madison. They did a good job on poor old Marbury

One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.
Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????