2416
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 17, 2020, 11:23:27 AM »Scholar, fix your quote boxes.After you fix your facts.
Scholar, fix your quote boxes.After you fix your facts.
[maybe you need to read the opinions
Fuck me, the Amy argument was that raping prisoners wasn't part of the guard's job and didn't benefit his employer, so the county wasn't liable. How about a duty to supervise their employees, a duty to protect prisoners under their care, hiring such a person in the first place. That'su a lot of culpability and negligence. And this wasn't a one time sexual assault but an ongoing series of assaults...
It's weird that she joined with a ruling that did hold a county liable, in another similar case. Why was she seeing the county as negligent in one case but not the other?
Red, I went to a website that explains law to simple-minded people like me. It said this about precedent:Except of course, you can’t produce a law, only a court opinion. 50 years after this “ landmark decision” the country remains split on the issue of abortion.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. The use of precedent provides predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. The Latin term stare decisis is the doctrine of legal precedent.
The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially announced principles that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.
Then I went another place that helps simpletons and they said that Roe was a landmark decision.
Don't we want "predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law?"
So wouldn't a scotus justice who has regard for landmark decisions help promote those good things?
Because Congress has displayed no backbone in trying, relying instead on nine robed and unelected justices to do their work.An Amendment to the Constitution is not needed to settle disputes to Abortion. A simple act of Congress signed by the President would suffice.Amended is the most widely used term. 27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution...
Now I'm even more dazed. And confused! I thought the people elected Senators to vet SCt appointments so the appointed ones would make decisions and interpretations and set precedents that furthered a Living Constitution. Which Living Constitution you just said you're in favor of. But then you said only amendments can modify a Living Constitution. So, if over 60% of Americans want a Constitution with a Roe v Wade interpretation, the will of the people doesn't matter? It's not an amendment so we can ignore it and appoint an Originalist who would gladly dump it?
Then, given that over 60% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, why has this simple act not been passed?
You earlier said the will of the people, expressed through their representatives, should prevail on the matter. Did it not happen because people believe Roe V Wade has the weight of law? I'm so confused... it almost sounds as if legal precedents matter!It did not happen because Congress does not do its job.
An Amendment to the Constitution is not needed to settle disputes to Abortion. A simple act of Congress signed by the President would suffice.Amended is the most widely used term. 27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution...
Now I'm even more dazed. And confused! I thought the people elected Senators to vet SCt appointments so the appointed ones would make decisions and interpretations and set precedents that furthered a Living Constitution. Which Living Constitution you just said you're in favor of. But then you said only amendments can modify a Living Constitution. So, if over 60% of Americans want a Constitution with a Roe v Wade interpretation, the will of the people doesn't matter? It's not an amendment so we can ignore it and appoint an Originalist who would gladly dump it?
Amended is the most widely used term. 27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution.Women have been voting for 100 years. It’s an amendment to the original US Constitution.
As has been pointed out, the Constitution of 1790 also has nothing to say about women having a right to vote. Or be judges.
So it's not in the original Constitution? So you're saying the Constitution is modified?
<Gosh, how did that happen?
I was just getting ready to soak in a nice warm bath of Originalism. This is very disturbing.Sorry for that.
Apples and Oranges. Originalism pertains to the words in the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade is not a statute, it is a court opinion establishing the legality of abortion. Even Ginsberg thought the Court decision was not well thought out. That Barrett would not treat ROE as a super precedent is not exactly shocking since we have been arguing over it for 50 years.And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent. There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter
Her law journal writings and other public opinions make it crystal clear she doesn't see Roe as super-p, or settled law. She's an Originalist, so it's pretty obvious she doesn't subscribe to Living Document theory. Or that the Constitution has anything to say about a right to medical privacy. If you don't know what that Living Document concept is, it's worth looking up.
As has been pointed out, the Constitution of 1790 also has nothing to say about women having a right to vote. Or be judges.Women have been voting for 100 years. It’s an amendment to the original US Constitution.
As was her answer to Klobuchar.And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent. There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter
Her law journal writings and other public opinions make it crystal clear she doesn't see Roe as super-p, or settled law.
That would be you, not me.Local school funding plus redlining put that ship on the outbound tide long ago, to the further shrinkage of your micropenis.By establishing race as a priority.Prop 16 would codify systemic racism. It is stillborn according to California polls .I voted, by mail.
I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...
Um, Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for. It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons. It works against systemic racism and poverty, Tony. You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.
With total common sense justification.
How does it codify systemic racism?
I had a longer answer, but yours gets to the heart of the matter. Notice how he cut the most telling facts and figures out of my followup post. Troll baby troll.
Pretty obvious as I stated .So you have no idea what super-precedent is? How did you achieve such renown? The kind of renown that allows you to boldly call a U. Of Chicago Law grad a "a constitutional idiot."Amy Klobuchar was asking Judge Barrett about the hold of precedent, and identified Brown v. Board of Education (1954) as “superpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is superprecedent?All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent isI have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?Amy Klobucharwas asking Judge Barrett about the hold of precedent, and identifiedBrown v. Board of Education (1954) as “superpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is superprecedent?
IIRC, thats a misrepresentation. Klobuchar asked ACB about a law article that ACB wrote about the concept of super-precedent and why ACB felt that RvW did not fall into that category.
And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing
Amy Klobuchar was asking Judge Barrett about the hold of precedent, and identified Brown v. Board of Education (1954) as “superpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is superprecedent?All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent isI have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?Amy Klobucharwas asking Judge Barrett about the hold of precedent, and identifiedBrown v. Board of Education (1954) as “superpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is superprecedent?
IIRC, thats a misrepresentation. Klobuchar asked ACB about a law article that ACB wrote about the concept of super-precedent and why ACB felt that RvW did not fall into that category.
And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
By establishing race as a priority.Prop 16 would codify systemic racism. It is stillborn according to California polls .I voted, by mail.
I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...
Um, Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for. It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons. It works against systemic racism and poverty, Tony. You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.
With total common sense justification.
How does it codify systemic racism?
I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?Amy Klobucharwas asking Judge Barrett about the hold of precedent, and identifiedBrown v. Board of Education (1954) as “superpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is superprecedent?
Super-precedent was a political concept raised in Barrett's writings. Why shouldn't a Senator, even a Constitutional idiot, ask a possible Justice about concepts she initially raised?Ask Amy Klocucher. She thinks( or thought) it was a big deal.
But instead why don't you show us your Constitutional eclat and tell us what super-precedent means?
LOL!
LOL! Yes she did.No she didn’tBecause Amy raised the issue.Klobuchar? Why would I ask a "Constutional idiot" (U of Chicago Law, notwithstanding) when I could ask someone of your scholarship?I'm not the scholar you are. She uses a lot of big words. Can't you help me out?Ask Amy to help you.