Featured The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

Case law does not really establish new law. Case law sets precedent in explaining how current law is interpreted where Constitutional, statutory or even regulatory law is vague.

There is no no new law entered on the books as the result of case law. It simply reshapes how the existing law is interpreted.

 

It was a joke and I'm sure you are aware of that.

I didn't say anything about it not being universally accepted . I said it did not establish a NEW law.

Nope. THAT would be unConstitutional as the judicial branch cannot not establish new law. They make interpretations of EXISTING law in relation to the Constitution.

Sure, a few legislative remedies exist (expanding the Court like FDR attempted, for one), but we tend to defer to tradition (i.e. precedent), even when it isn't binding.

There is, however, almost nothing to stop SCOTUS from taking a activist approach that reinterprets part of the Constitution to fit an agenda (cf. Wickard v. Filburn). Plus, with the principle of Chevron deference for federal agencies, SCOTUS could go out of its way to make an activist-friendly decision.[/quote]

Sure there is. That's what the checks and balances are for.

That's STILL not undoing the 2nd Amendment or creating new law.

Not even not directly. That can't make law at all.

 

Yes, indeed. Both of our statements stand! I can appreciate obnoxious humor, so it's not a big slight fro me. I assure you.

Variant pronunciations of potato and tomato here. It doesn't create a NEW law de jure, but it has the effect of a new law de facto.

And activist interpretations have the DE FACTO (not de jure) way of basically creating the equivalent of new law. We may not call it law, but it sure functions like one, minus the review element by a higher body.

Again de jure vs. de facto. On paper we have them. In practice, we don't. It's like the VP tiebreaking rule in the Senate. It's veeeeery rarely invoked because of filibusters. If you have 60 votes for cloture, you don't have a tie.

In theory, Constitutional Amendments are designed to be a way to make needed changes, but in practice, they are nearly impossible to pass anymore.

Why? Besides the bitter division in the country, you can get quicker change through SCOTUS. That just takes one case.

It's undermining it. Again de jure vs. de facto. Call it whatever you wish, but it's a change in policy with universal binding force.

That's why test cases are needed. A test case hit the right court? BAM! Change happens. Sometimes that has been a very good thing, but it has the potential to go the opposite direction.

No credible person would claim that SCOTUS has actual, de jure lawmaking capacity. Of course it doesn't. But the practice of judicial review has become a vehicle through which universally binding change can occur. That may not be "making law," but it is the next best (or better) thing.

I think this is discussion is being driven by technicalities. Legally speaking, no, SCOTUS does not and cannot make law. The same would apply to any court. Practically speaking, SCOTUS can and does make binding decisions that have the force equivalent to law (plus the backing of SCOTUS).

 

Does the law on the books change? I said a new law was not being created and there hasn't been a new one created by case law.

Nope. Still just reinterpreting how the existing law is interpreted in terms of the Constitution where vagueness existed.

That's why you roll with the punches. The dice roll your way sometimes and others they don't. But no new laws are being created. No new SCOTUS is undoing the 2nd Amendment. That's just fear-mongering.

Call it what you want. It's a change in interpretation in accordance to the Constitution by a majority of the Justices. It isn't a new law.

Still no new law.

That's why we craft better laws.

And that is all I have said. they cannot change or do away with the 2nd Amendment. Sure saying that Hillary will appoint Justices who will do that sounds good as partisan political propaganda. But it's not true and is used just like folks claiming one party or the other is gonna push grandma over the cliff and take her SS.

 

Does that liberty extend to women who want to have abortions?

And as I've said before, Thank you for your service in the military and as an officer.

I think being pro-liberty is just like being pro-life. There has to be consistency and a lack of hypocrisy.

 

I agree with your comments RE: exaggerations. I would not say that Hillary would do those things to the 2nd Amendment. I'd say she's going to appoint justices likely to adopt a relatively restrictive view of the right to bear arms.

To some, that feels like taking it away, and they speak from a more emotive perspective. I understand why.

But I don't have a dog in the fight, personally, as I don't own firearms, even as I don't necessarily want to see unwarranted restrictions put in place.

 

Possibly. But I get the impression that she, like Obama, simply wants to get "certain" military-styled guns out of people's hands.

Can't say that I disagree with that sentiment. There's too much violence and it's just too easy for folks to murder a lot of folks in a short period with these guns.


I just haven't seen a credible plan to go about collecting said guns if someone did want.

 

Agreed, so why would you want anyone from that party being president since it is full of people with no backbone?

The Man in the Moon does not exist so he will never be president regardless of how many votes he may get. Also, this is the internet, not the real world.

 

Most states don't require a license to own a gun. And I wonder how many of those involved in mass shootings got their guns from licensed family members?

According to what I'm reading, the very folks you're claiming aren't committing the shootings with the guns are the ones committing the shootings.

 

you believe that the Constitution affords you the liberty to own guns. They believe that the Constitution allows them the liberty to decide what happens in their bodies.

I'm placing you in that category with most folks who are in the GOP. You may not believe this way, but I think a lot of the folks in the GOP only believe in liberty as much as it aligns with their values and how they want to interpret things.

So an example would be you , i.e. telling a woman she doesn't have the right to have an abortion because you believe it's murder. So the inconsistency arises in believing that your liberty to do what you want to do should trump her liberty.

Another example, again not specific to you, would be gay marriage. We want the liberty to do what we want, but we don't want gay folks to have the same liberty

Now I'm definitely not advocating for gay marriage. But I think you probably get the gist of what I'm saying.