|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 26, 2016 9:57:55 GMT -6
www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/high-school/2016/07/25/lhsaa-has-trust-issues/87528006/Trey Labat has hit the nail on the head, he must be hanging out with Kevin Foote too much. Particularly, the private school members of the LHSAA have lost complete trust in the association. They have been lied to, lied about and disparaged to a point of no return. Even if the split would go away today, the loss of trust will remain for at least the next 4 to 5 years. The real shame is that the LHSAA just 10 years ago, was looked upon as one of the better high school associations. Today, thanks mismanagement and the selfish desire for N. LA large school principals W. Monroe, Ruston et. al. to get rid of competition sent e and JC down to 1 and 2A. Thus starting the ultimate death spiral of the association. Watching the democratic national convention last night, it was the epitome of the LHSAA. A dumpster fire and that's what happens when socialist take over any association.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 10:03:30 GMT -6
www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/high-school/2016/07/25/lhsaa-has-trust-issues/87528006/Trey Labat has hit the nail on the head, he must be hanging out with Kevin Foote too much. Particularly, the private school members of the LHSAA have lost complete trust in the association. They have been lied to, lied about and disparaged to a point of no return. Even if the split would go away today, the loss of trust will remain for at least the next 4 to 5 years. The real shame is that the LHSAA just 10 years ago, was looked upon as one of the better high school associations. Today, thanks mismanagement and the selfish desire for N. LA large school principals W. Monroe, Ruston et. al. to get rid of competition sent e and JC down to 1 and 2A. Thus starting the ultimate death spiral of the association. Watching the democratic national convention last night, it was the epitome of the LHSAA. A dumpster fire and that's what happens when socialist take over any association. My wife and I had the same thoughts watching the DNCC last night. Socialist! Geez
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 26, 2016 10:35:33 GMT -6
www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/high-school/2016/07/25/lhsaa-has-trust-issues/87528006/Trey Labat has hit the nail on the head, he must be hanging out with Kevin Foote too much. Particularly, the private school members of the LHSAA have lost complete trust in the association. They have been lied to, lied about and disparaged to a point of no return. Even if the split would go away today, the loss of trust will remain for at least the next 4 to 5 years. The real shame is that the LHSAA just 10 years ago, was looked upon as one of the better high school associations. Today, thanks mismanagement and the selfish desire for N. LA large school principals W. Monroe, Ruston et. al. to get rid of competition sent e and JC down to 1 and 2A. Thus starting the ultimate death spiral of the association. Watching the democratic national convention last night, it was the epitome of the LHSAA. A dumpster fire and that's what happens when socialist take over any association. My wife and I had the same thoughts watching the DNCC last night. Socialist! Geez When was the last time you saw a political convention that was eating it's own candidate. LOCK HER UP, LOCK HEr up!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 26, 2016 10:36:29 GMT -6
My wife and I had the same thoughts watching the DNCC last night. Socialist! Geez When was the last time you saw a political convention that was eating it's own candidate. LOCK HER UP, LOCK HEr up!!!!!! And disrespect booing the invocation. LOL.......
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 13:01:49 GMT -6
www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/high-school/2016/07/25/lhsaa-has-trust-issues/87528006/Trey Labat has hit the nail on the head, he must be hanging out with Kevin Foote too much. Particularly, the private school members of the LHSAA have lost complete trust in the association. They have been lied to, lied about and disparaged to a point of no return. Even if the split would go away today, the loss of trust will remain for at least the next 4 to 5 years. The real shame is that the LHSAA just 10 years ago, was looked upon as one of the better high school associations. Today, thanks mismanagement and the selfish desire for N. LA large school principals W. Monroe, Ruston et. al. to get rid of competition sent e and JC down to 1 and 2A. Thus starting the ultimate death spiral of the association. Watching the democratic national convention last night, it was the epitome of the LHSAA. A dumpster fire and that's what happens when socialist take over any association. I think a more appropriate analogy would be when the popular opinion trumps the constitution...no pun intended.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 26, 2016 13:15:39 GMT -6
www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/high-school/2016/07/25/lhsaa-has-trust-issues/87528006/Trey Labat has hit the nail on the head, he must be hanging out with Kevin Foote too much. Particularly, the private school members of the LHSAA have lost complete trust in the association. They have been lied to, lied about and disparaged to a point of no return. Even if the split would go away today, the loss of trust will remain for at least the next 4 to 5 years. The real shame is that the LHSAA just 10 years ago, was looked upon as one of the better high school associations. Today, thanks mismanagement and the selfish desire for N. LA large school principals W. Monroe, Ruston et. al. to get rid of competition sent e and JC down to 1 and 2A. Thus starting the ultimate death spiral of the association. Watching the democratic national convention last night, it was the epitome of the LHSAA. A dumpster fire and that's what happens when socialist take over any association. I think a more appropriate analogy would be when the popular opinion trumps the constitution...no pun intended. That's where the supreme court is suppose to come in. Making sure that popular opinion NEVER trumps the Constitution. But our current Supreme Court bends over backwards to make the Constitution irrelevant and adjust arguments in favor of one side to fit their own personal agenda. Justices are not suppose to adjust laws to make them meet the constitution, they are suppose to declare them unconstitutional and send them back to the congress. When popular opinion becomes more important than the constitution you have tyranny of the majority. When enough people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise without consequence, then you have collapse of the economic system of supply and demand and the loss of checks and balance. That is where we are now, at a loss of checks and balance.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 13:32:59 GMT -6
I think a more appropriate analogy would be when the popular opinion trumps the constitution...no pun intended. That's where the supreme court is suppose to come in. Making sure that popular opinion NEVER trumps the Constitution. But our current Supreme Court bends over backwards to make the Constitution irrelevant and adjust arguments in favor of one side to fit their own personal agenda. Justices are not suppose to adjust laws to make them meet the constitution, they are suppose to declare them unconstitutional and send them back to the congress. When popular opinion becomes more important than the constitution you have tyranny of the majority. When enough people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise without consequence, then you have collapse of the economic system of supply and demand and the loss of checks and balance. That is where we are now, at a loss of checks and balance. As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 13:43:25 GMT -6
That's where the supreme court is suppose to come in. Making sure that popular opinion NEVER trumps the Constitution. But our current Supreme Court bends over backwards to make the Constitution irrelevant and adjust arguments in favor of one side to fit their own personal agenda. Justices are not suppose to adjust laws to make them meet the constitution, they are suppose to declare them unconstitutional and send them back to the congress. When popular opinion becomes more important than the constitution you have tyranny of the majority. When enough people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise without consequence, then you have collapse of the economic system of supply and demand and the loss of checks and balance. That is where we are now, at a loss of checks and balance. As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
So you are saying Justices are never wrong? Their decisions are never unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 13:50:37 GMT -6
As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
So you are saying Justices are never wrong? Their decisions are never unanimous. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that they absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, can not alter the wording or letter of the law. This is illegal and no opposing attorney would allow this to happen. Supreme Court Justices can only interpret their opinion of the meaning of the laws...hence "the opinion of the court".
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 13:54:56 GMT -6
So you are saying Justices are never wrong? Their decisions are never unanimous. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that they absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, can not alter the wording or letter of the law. This is illegal and no opposing attorney would allow this to happen. Supreme Court Justices can only interpret their opinion of the meaning of the laws...hence "the opinion of the court". That is as clear as mud! Lol!
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 14:04:33 GMT -6
Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that they absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, can not alter the wording or letter of the law. This is illegal and no opposing attorney would allow this to happen. Supreme Court Justices can only interpret their opinion of the meaning of the laws...hence "the opinion of the court". That is as clear as mud! Lol! So today's lesson in Civics 101...laws are written by and passed by Congress...If the Solicitor General of the United States feels that a law may be un-constitutional, it is assigned to the US Supreme Court. The Justices of the Supreme Court render their opinions on whether or not the law is constitutional. The opinions are majority rule and rarely unanimous. If the law is deemed unconstitutional it is thrown out. If is ruled legal, it remains in place. Justices can only render their opinion as to whether or not the law is constitutional. They CAN NOT change the wording of the law to make it so.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 14:12:21 GMT -6
That is as clear as mud! Lol! So today's lesson in Civics 101...laws are written by and passed by Congress...If the Solicitor General of the United States feels that a law may be un-constitutional, it is assigned to the US Supreme Court. The Justices of the Supreme Court render their opinions on whether or not the law is constitutional. The opinions are majority rule and rarely unanimous. If the law is deemed unconstitutional it is thrown out. If is ruled legal, it remains in place. Justices can only render their opinion as to whether or not the law is constitutional. They CAN NOT change the wording of the law to make it so. Then as a skilled attorney, is the LHSAA breaking its own rules as iknownothing is saying?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 14:23:03 GMT -6
So today's lesson in Civics 101...laws are written by and passed by Congress...If the Solicitor General of the United States feels that a law may be un-constitutional, it is assigned to the US Supreme Court. The Justices of the Supreme Court render their opinions on whether or not the law is constitutional. The opinions are majority rule and rarely unanimous. If the law is deemed unconstitutional it is thrown out. If is ruled legal, it remains in place. Justices can only render their opinion as to whether or not the law is constitutional. They CAN NOT change the wording of the law to make it so. Then as a skilled attorney, is the LHSAA breaking its own rules as iknownothing is saying? Without knowing all the facts of the litigation process, I could not possibly have a meaningful opinion. From what I do know about the situation, it seems that the initial LHSAA constitution and/or by laws were weak at best, which allowed it to be overruled by popular opinion.
My above discussion(s) were regarding the US Judicial process, which is protected by the strongest constitution ever created.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 14:28:38 GMT -6
Then as a skilled attorney, is the LHSAA breaking its own rules as iknownothing is saying? Without knowing all the facts of the litigation process, I could not possibly have a meaningful opinion. From what I do know about the situation, it seems that the initial LHSAA constitution and/or by laws were weak at best, which allowed it to be overruled by popular opinion.
My above discussion(s) were regarding the US Judicial process, which is protected by the strongest constitution ever created.
If (when) a private school(s) sues the LHSAA for discrimination do you think they have a case?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 14:39:27 GMT -6
Without knowing all the facts of the litigation process, I could not possibly have a meaningful opinion. From what I do know about the situation, it seems that the initial LHSAA constitution and/or by laws were weak at best, which allowed it to be overruled by popular opinion.
My above discussion(s) were regarding the US Judicial process, which is protected by the strongest constitution ever created.
If (when) a private school(s) sues the LHSAA for discrimination do you think they have a case? I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could not exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
For the record, I am a huge fan of the old system and despise the current split.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 14:47:29 GMT -6
If (when) a private school(s) sues the LHSAA for discrimination do you think they have a case? I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
So if the Lions club votes for the Catholics to meet on a different day, 3 meetings a month instead of 4 like the majority, have a smaller meal, than the majority but pay the same dues, that would be an uphill lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2016 14:54:48 GMT -6
I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
So if the Lions club votes for the Catholics to meet on a different day, 3 meetings a month instead of 4 like the majority, have a smaller meal, than the majority but pay the same dues, that would be an uphill lawsuit? Ever hear of the saying "you can't compare apples and oranges"...well you can't compare Lion's club meeting to high school sports. That is the first thing any judge would say to you if you made that analogy in a court room.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 15:06:39 GMT -6
So if the Lions club votes for the Catholics to meet on a different day, 3 meetings a month instead of 4 like the majority, have a smaller meal, than the majority but pay the same dues, that would be an uphill lawsuit? Ever hear of the saying "you can't compare apples and oranges"...well you can't compare Lion's club meeting to high school sports. That is the first thing any judge would say to you if you made that analogy in a court room.
Well when Kenny Henderson got a (bogus) Supreme Court ruling to exempt the LHSAA from legislative audits and interference they used the Lions Club and Kiawnis clubs as examples.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 5:05:41 GMT -6
Ever hear of the saying "you can't compare apples and oranges"...well you can't compare Lion's club meeting to high school sports. That is the first thing any judge would say to you if you made that analogy in a court room.
Well when Kenny Henderson got a (bogus) Supreme Court ruling to exempt the LHSAA from legislative audits and interference they used the Lions Club and Kiawnis clubs as examples. If I was the opposing counsel, I would be quick to point out the logical fallacy in this argument. It is a spurious correlation to compare two unique events in order to prove a point. Again, I am not familiar with the facts of the case, but I would assume that this was brought to the attention of those involved.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 8:28:22 GMT -6
That's where the supreme court is suppose to come in. Making sure that popular opinion NEVER trumps the Constitution. But our current Supreme Court bends over backwards to make the Constitution irrelevant and adjust arguments in favor of one side to fit their own personal agenda. Justices are not suppose to adjust laws to make them meet the constitution, they are suppose to declare them unconstitutional and send them back to the congress. When popular opinion becomes more important than the constitution you have tyranny of the majority. When enough people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise without consequence, then you have collapse of the economic system of supply and demand and the loss of checks and balance. That is where we are now, at a loss of checks and balance. As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
That's what Chief Justice Roberts did to rule on Care when he change the wording to fit a definition.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 8:41:18 GMT -6
As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
That's what Chief Justice Roberts did to rule on Care when he change the wording to fit a definition. I'm pretty sure they made legislation in Roe vs Wade. They determined that an unborn fetus was not life. If they were unsure they should have made congress pass a law to determine the exact time life starts. But they took it upon themselves to determine that. Just saying. I'm not a lawyer but I have slept at a holiday inn
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 9:08:07 GMT -6
As a practicing attorney, I am fairly well versed in the Judicial Process. I agree with most of what you say; however, if you show me one example of justices altering laws instead of interpreting them, said judge would be in prison. This is a common, but dangerous misconception.
The point that I was trying to make, is that if the constitution would have been stronger, it would have stood up to the majority who wanted to split.
That's what Chief Justice Roberts did to rule on Care when he change the wording to fit a definition. This is not correct. He changed his opinion of the interpretation of the law, not the law itself. Justices can not change the wording of the law. This would be a clear violation of separation of powers.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 9:20:50 GMT -6
That's what Chief Justice Roberts did to rule on Care when he change the wording to fit a definition. I'm pretty sure they made legislation in Roe vs Wade. They determined that an unborn fetus was not life. If they were unsure they should have made congress pass a law to determine the exact time life starts. But they took it upon themselves to determine that. Just saying. I'm not a lawyer but I have slept at a holiday inn The Supreme Court can not "make" Congress do anything. It can only rule on the legality of the laws passed.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 9:26:09 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure they made legislation in Roe vs Wade. They determined that an unborn fetus was not life. If they were unsure they should have made congress pass a law to determine the exact time life starts. But they took it upon themselves to determine that. Just saying. I'm not a lawyer but I have slept at a holiday inn The Supreme Court can not "make" Congress do anything. It can only rule on the legality of the laws passed. There is an important document that says Americans are entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Didn't the Supreme Court change that?
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 9:29:50 GMT -6
If (when) a private school(s) sues the LHSAA for discrimination do you think they have a case? I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could not exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
For the record, I am a huge fan of the old system and despise the current split.
I have copied and pasted over the years the sections of the bylaws and the constitution of the LHSAA to this board that I felt were violated by the vote. Now you cannot get a copy of those bylaws any longer as they have been changed and pulled down from public access. While I am not a lawyer and I try to never stay at any Holiday Inn anywhere. (Well except in one small town way up north that it is the only decent hotel) I do make recommendations to businesses as a consultant on how to build a proper employee manual and other business documents. Of course we always have the client pass them through a legal office and accounting office before acceptance. The things that comes back to haunt businesses when challenge in courts or by government agencies (OSHA, DEQ etc.) is that they either do not have a manual, the manual they had was incomplete or unsigned or that they ignored the rules that were written. As a private institution, that has a manual for its members and the willy nilly nature in which it has been ignored and changed makes them a prime candidate for a lawsuit. Once again here are the sections I believe they have violated and how they have violated them: 2.1 This Association is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes as the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, and including the following: 3. To protect members of the Association by preparing and enforcing eligibility rules that will equalize and stimulate wholesome competition. Instead I believe that they are allowing certain members to dictate without concept of fact or existing rule unwritten eligibility rules. The rules as written and approved did not give them the results they wanted so now they want to improperly punish schools for success. 4. To prevent the exploitation of member schools’ programs by special interest groups. This group of N. LA principals have acted on their own special interest against the good of the whole. First with lie and innuendo, convinced schools to enforce a play in class rule to punish two specific members in good standing within the organization. 5. To preserve the game for the boys and girls and not sacrifice the boys and girls to the game. The same group I speak in #4 have moved to sacrifice the boys and girls of private schools in the name of a public school championship. Instead of doing good for all members private students have been sacrificed to the whims of public school administrators. 6. To promote the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play in all athletic contests. There is not sportsmanship or fair play in ANY playoff game that features and undefeated team against a winless team that has only scored two touchdowns all season in a rout. This also violates #5 above. Nor is their fair play in forcing members in good standing out of the playoffs simply to ensure that others (public schools) will be guaranteed a championship. It is unfair and violates the spirit of sportsmanship that the LHSAA has also stripped successful private schools from an income stream and a chance to play for the class championship into which they are classified. Which according to the Constitution are the only true state champions.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 9:34:04 GMT -6
The Supreme Court can not "make" Congress do anything. It can only rule on the legality of the laws passed. There is an important document that says Americans are entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Didn't the Supreme Court change that? Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence?
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 9:46:01 GMT -6
There is an important document that says Americans are entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Didn't the Supreme Court change that? Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence? That too, but isn't part of our constitution? Not arguing I just don't think that Supreme Court justices always interprete laws according to the constitution. I learned that from Judge Robert Bourque at a speakers forum years ago.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 9:54:31 GMT -6
Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence? That too, but isn't part of our constitution? Not arguing I just don't think that Supreme Court justices always interprete laws according to the constitution. I learned that from Judge Robert Bourque at a speakers forum years ago. Historically, judges have made interpretations that reflect the party lines of the President who appointed them. Judges who are appointed by Democrats will side with opinions and judges who are appointed by Republicans will reflect Conservative agendas. Extreme judges of any party are equally as dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 10:28:30 GMT -6
That too, but isn't part of our constitution? Not arguing I just don't think that Supreme Court justices always interprete laws according to the constitution. I learned that from Judge Robert Bourque at a speakers forum years ago. Historically, judges have made interpretations that reflect the party lines of the President who appointed them. Judges who are appointed by Democrats will side with opinions and judges who are appointed by Republicans will reflect Conservative agendas. Extreme judges of any party are equally as dangerous. Case closed, you win counselor! Court adjourned!
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 12:49:32 GMT -6
That too, but isn't part of our constitution? Not arguing I just don't think that Supreme Court justices always interprete laws according to the constitution. I learned that from Judge Robert Bourque at a speakers forum years ago. Historically, judges have made interpretations that reflect the party lines of the President who appointed them. Judges who are appointed by Democrats will side with opinions and judges who are appointed by Republicans will reflect Conservative agendas. Extreme judges of any party are equally as dangerous. Isn't this exactly the problem? That judges take upon themselves their own personal bias instead of looking for strict constitutional interpretation? Isn't that the argument against Scalia, Thomas and Souter by the left? That they are strict constitutional judges no matter the president's party in power? It was all begun by Justice Blackmon, the first to use his position as a Justice to forward a personal political agenda. He authored Roe vs Wade. A Republican who was thought to be a strict Conservative Constitutionalist that turned out not to be what he was advertised much like Roberts who views the constitution as a living document to be change by caveat from the bench. Blackmon was appointed by Eisenhower.
|
|