something something...activist judges...something something...legislating from the bench...
Too Bad
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
something something...activist judges...something something...legislating from the bench...
What does that mean...not the alum part.
He's semi-retired. Those judges usually handle more routine matters and don't take on time-intensive or media pressured case loads because, as it turns out, they're semi-retired.
For some more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_status
I've been trying to figure out the video sequence. . . . is that a piccolo? what? is it superglued to the dude's lips? And where is that high-class restaurant with one of the booths converted to a jon? Too many patrons needing to "go"?
OK, about the legislating from the bench thing. That's what a lot of supporters of Obamacare are saying. . . . . funny I bet they don't think so when the judge rules their way. . . .
Under our constitution, we have no one but the Pres who can veto a legislative bill, and no one but the Judicial who can rule on how it conforms to the Constitution. Well, unless you want jury nullification to count. . . .
I agree with the judge.
IMO, I'm not excited about having a government bureaucracy/establishment meddling in my personal life. I don't even like Social Security. I enjoy life where the rubber meets the road and you have to think about what you do and take responsibility for yourself.
So the Pres is gonna have his AG argue that the interstate commerce clause gives the Feds the power to set the price for movies, popcorn, and establish approved movie content too, I see. ICC has been used in the past to give the feds power to dictate what farmers can plant on their own land. . . . . when wheat prices were depressed they argued that since a lot of wheat goes across state lines, and all wheat produced impacts the overall price. . . . .therefore the fed must micromanage everthing for some reason or another.
When I was young I was disabled for a time. I went one time to the SSA and sorta got miffed at the system, and decided it wasn't worth the time to go there anymore. I read a story by Solzhenitsyn about a widow in "Matryona's House" who gave up on waiting for her pension to be approved, and went to the woods and gathered sticks and berries instead, and prospered better than those who waited in the long lines of the gov agencies. . . . .
Frankly, giving the gov the power to weigh in on life and death decisions just scares me spitless.
I bet all the regular staff didn't want it. I mean, if you have huge career plans ahead of you, you just don't want to get yourself into this one.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This is a seriously weird thread. Probably 5 different conversations at one time, only moderately related. This thread should never be allowed to end, by congressional mandate. Would that be constitutional?
Dude. I'm the one who asked the question. I have no idea.
In a practical sense: not really.
Everyone knows this isn't getting resolved at the District Court level no matter which side won and we already had a pre-existing District Split on this exact issue.
I don't care if it's constitutional or not. Fun is an inalienable right, and there's nothing more fun than making fun of legislators. . . . . and judges. . . . . or whoever is all bunched up over how to make us all be good.
Ahhhh, makes sense. But then it shouldnt matter since it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court right?
I originally thought or agreed with after reading, that this was the route those that are against this legislation were going to take...
So, how long does it take to make it to the Supreme Court? Its on appeals now...right?
My first guess is probably a fast track. But it is a political calculation with a great risk attached. Will America accept it as final if the Supreme Court gives it a quick ruling in favor of Obamacare, or will they then do another huge restaffing of the Senate and House and Presidency?
Maybe democracy can work, after all????
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Forcing people to buy products is catching on:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun