Good editorial on judicial interpretation

[wmw999 2,178]

This editorial ( July 1st column) covers a couple of Supreme Court judgments that seemed to go against what people really wanted. However, it then goes on to show why in each case the ruling was right, based on the actual law, and not on what people wanted it to mean. Worth reading.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

in each case the ruling was right, based on the actual law, and not on what people wanted it to mean.

well, that kind of attitude by judges will piss off fanatical libs and cons all over the place......

Quote

The SJC practically invited Massachusetts to change the law,

In my opinion, absolutely a critical duty of any court - remind the legislative branch when they make unclear and stupid laws. Make the leg fix it rather than defile the separation of duties

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

wmw999

Worth reading.

Agreed.

I think people too easily look past the flaws in laws with which they largely agree.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Good article.

Courts can ignore/strike down a law only if it's unconstitutional. If the law is merely stupid, or badly written, or leads to absurd results, it's up to legislators to fix it. Of course these days that may be expecting a lot.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

champu

***Worth reading.

Agreed.

I think people too easily look past the flaws in laws with which they largely agree.

"easily look past" hell, they take them, coat them in gold, put them on pedestals and make excuse after excuse for them - anything for the "Cause dejour"

I'm particularly fond of people that want the judicial to re-write laws for the cause dejour. But only their's, not any others....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jclalor 12]

wmw999

This editorial ( July 1st column) covers a couple of Supreme Court judgments that seemed to go against what people really wanted. However, it then goes on to show why in each case the ruling was right, based on the actual law, and not on what people wanted it to mean. Worth reading.

Wendy P.

It's interesting; they would in rule favor of a grieving father's right to privacy, (WBC) yet a women, undergoing a very sensitive legal medical procedure gets 35 ft.

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

This editorial ( July 1st column) covers a couple of Supreme Court judgments that seemed to go against what people really wanted. However, it then goes on to show why in each case the ruling was right, based on the actual law, and not on what people wanted it to mean. Worth reading.

Wendy P.

Is it good because it agrees with your stance, or are you objective on this one?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

GeorgiaDon

Good article.

Courts can ignore/strike down a law only if it's unconstitutional. If the law is merely stupid, or badly written, or leads to absurd results, it's up to legislators to fix it. Of course these days that may be expecting a lot.

Don

Exactly my problem. The President and Congress could have simply repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and had two years where the GOP was powerless to stop it (2009-2011). But, due to politics, the President and Congress utilized the strategy of punting to the Courts to let the Courts handle it.

It's far too frequent. Politicians leaving it to the courts to do the right thing. Then taking credit when the courts do it. Or, villifying the courts for doing the right thing when they didn't want that.

As far as the courts go, I'd recommend anyone read the opinions (I always start with the dissents, personally). They demonstrate how the Courts don't start with asking what a great idea would be for the betterment of society. They start with rules. And the SCOTUS is tasked with frequently starting with the Constitution and understanding that the Constitution frequently stands in the way of government policy.

And protecting the unpopular beliefs...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Hey, welcome back.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 3]

lawrocket

As far as the courts go, I'd recommend anyone read the opinions (I always start with the dissents, personally).

What about keeping track of the additional opinions after the initial ones?

What?

Hey, have any of you fine folks been keeping track of how this narrow and tightly defined exception has been rapidly expanding since the the initial ruling?

The initial ruling was opening the door.

Now, it's just getting silly.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80738692/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

The Hobby Lobby case wasn't one of the examples raised in this thread, but yes I've been watching this. I was making light of the same issue raised in your article when in this post I wrote...

"Note that a law requiring such signage need not actually be passed for these exceptions to the statutes against murder to hold."

It really comes down to RFRA being an immensely broken law due to the least restrictive means clause. As long as there exists a belief (any belief as long as you believe it) and you can imagine an alternative that is "less restrictive" on you being able to adhere to that belief (and to hell with everyone else) then you can ignore any law you want.

There's a case referenced in the Hobby Lobby decision that I was meaning to look up that may have been decided against RFRA in a discrimination suit. That decision may have some arguments that temper this view of RFRA.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***As far as the courts go, I'd recommend anyone read the opinions (I always start with the dissents, personally).

What about keeping track of the additional opinions after the initial ones?

What?

Hey, have any of you fine folks been keeping track of how this narrow and tightly defined exception has been rapidly expanding since the the initial ruling?

The initial ruling was opening the door.

Now, it's just getting silly.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80738692/

Yeah. I've seen Autocam v. Burwell, Gilardi v. H&HS, and Eden Foods v. Burwell get vacated and remanded for lower courts to consider in light of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision. Meaning they deal with the same type of issue. Even the same issue. Nno need for the SCOTUS to rule again.

All the cases involved the same idea. Take a look at the questions presented in those three cases. See the similarities but some real differences. Thw Wheaton College v. Burwell case is still pending, and read the order in that case. [Url]www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf[/url]

I think it's quite remarkable. It not only demonstrates how divisive the issue is, but how piss-ant the whole argument is. It's about a system the government put in to ensure that religious objections are honored. Look at the vociferousness of the dissent. The order says it's expressing no opinion about the merits. The dissent's whole point is this: Wheaton hasn't made a sufficient showing to warrant an injunction.

The Hobby Lobby decision is just as narrow as it was, and the three remands leave it to the Circuit courts to fine tune the ruling with the different circumstances. The whole depth of passion is inversely related to the breadth of the rulling.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

***As far as the courts go, I'd recommend anyone read the opinions (I always start with the dissents, personally).

What about keeping track of the additional opinions after the initial ones?

What?

Hey, have any of you fine folks been keeping track of how this narrow and tightly defined exception has been rapidly expanding since the the initial ruling?

The initial ruling was opening the door.

Now, it's just getting silly.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80738692/

Not silly - Only thing silly is the author and his opinions.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun