Posted on 12/13/2010 1:15:06 PM PST by pissant
That is not fair to those of us who do not commit mass murder?
You are ridiculous.
> “I just advocated the Conservative position.”
.
You’ve done no such thing; you’ve advanced the nullification of the constitution, by placing congress aloof from correction by the court.
.
> “What do we need a Congress for when we can have rule from the bench?”
.
Stupid strawman.
Congress’ job is minding the business of the federal government. Little of what congress does these days falls into that category, and the courts are our only avenue of redress when congress exceeds its bounds. We do not have the power to direct the votes of our “representatives.”
.
Where did Social Security go? Don't trip while you''re back-peddling.
Have you even read the Constitution?
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.BTW, where does the Constitution say that court rulings are above Congress? Or that courts should legislate from the bench? Or that political questions should be decided in court? Or that courts should make policy?
Who said anything about "fair"? That's a child's argument.
Liberals constantly call for laws to be changed from the bench because they're not "fair." Abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, illegal aliens...
The Constitution delegated legislative power to Congress, not the courts. You should read it someday.
And editor-surveyor decides what that business should be. Got it.
I just love it when one of you statist thugs declares themselves to be a conservative. - Its just so convincing!
> “and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
.
The present court ruled in full accordance with the regulations that previous congresses have put in place.
.
> “BTW, where does the Constitution say that court rulings are above Congress?”
.
Do you have any clue as to what Appelate Jurisdiction is?
The court didn’t initiate this action; a state Attorney General determined that congress had exceeded its constitutional authority, and sued for restoration of constitutional protections.
.
> “Or that courts should legislate from the bench?”
.
There was no legislation from this bench. Its findings were based on the literal reading of the text of the constitution, and accepted definitions of terms.
.
> “Or that political questions should be decided in court?”
So in your opinion, discarding the constitution is just acceptable politics? Not revolution by extra-constitutional usurpation of authority?
You have clearly defined yourself as a totalitarian statist with that post.
.
And I get a chuckle out of dullards who have no clue what the Constitution actually says or any idea what a conservative actually is.
Doublethink.
Do you have any clue as to what Appelate Jurisdiction is?
The jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court if and when it hears this issue. Nice foot shot.
There was no legislation from this bench. Its findings were based on the literal reading of the text of the constitution
Ah, yes, the individual mandate clause. Look out Social Security!
So in your opinion, discarding the constitution is just acceptable politics?
No, that would be you. You want the courts to legislate. You want the courts to decide political questions. You depend on imaginary clauses in the Constitution.
Congress should repeal the legislation, notwithstanding your opposition to and contempt for representative government.
Obviously you think a legislative body with unabated power insulated from redress of grievance is somewhere to be found in the constitution, but the opposite is reality.
Congress is not a monarchical body.
You would have loved Joe Stalin.
Thanks for the non sequitur. The Supreme Court isn't a set of philosopher princes secretly given legislative power by one of your non-existent clauses.
You would have loved Joe Stalin.
Backwards. He hated the rule of law almost as much as you do.
It is you that depends on not just an imaginary clause, but a complete imaginary article rifing above the rest of the constitution.
Nothing that you choose to believe is anywheres to be found in the constitution, and redress of extraconstitutional action is not in any way related to legislation; it is the very purpose of the appelate courts.
Whatever you’re smoking, give it up!
Nothing in your post related to anything out side of it.
You’re not even addressing any post in your responses.
Your delusion is total.
Really? Where's the delegation of legislative powers to the courts clause?
Maybe you can find it hanging out with its pal Roe V. Wade.
You’re at a zero signal to noise ratio. You got nothing.
The court did absolutely NOTHING legislative.
This decision is diametrically opposite to Roe.
It restores the constioution to its rightful place, controlling and limiting the power of congress to that which is clearly stated in the constitution.
Take your totalitarian socialism and go home to Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.