Desperate Degenerate Support Group

[Pedro I Rengel]

To NOT color it, is the entire duty of the scotus.

[Pedro I Rengel]

My man, what makes the scotus the scotus, is that when a lower court has looked at an allegation that a law was broken, and decided that it was or it wasn't, and the scotus finds that a party appealing the decision has good reason to believe that the lower court missed something, they take the case. They are the last chain uop where this happens, so their decisions on whether a law was broken or not are final.

nah man thats what appellate courts do. then that may or may not be final depending on if the loser can show a novel element that can get them to scotus where the law would then be interpreted and thereby colored by that interpretation.

Dude, that is exactly what the scotus is, the last court of appeals.

This is why Democrats must not be allowed anywhere near a judge appointment.

[Mr Reasonable]

To NOT color it, is the entire duty of the scotus.

and its inherent in what they do that it gets colored which is what makes it a problem in judicial philosophy and not just a practical one that can be solved by practical means and the reason why they chose a woman with 3 years experience to overturn what has been regarded as settled law for over 30 years.

[Pedro I Rengel]

They are not there to color the law. They are there, supposed to be the most learned and capable you can find, to make damn sure the law is NOT being colored, but followed to the letter, because after the scotus there are no do-overs.

[Mr Reasonable]

My man, what makes the scotus the scotus, is that when a lower court has looked at an allegation that a law was broken, and decided that it was or it wasn't, and the scotus finds that a party appealing the decision has good reason to believe that the lower court missed something, they take the case. They are the last chain uop where this happens, so their decisions on whether a law was broken or not are final.

nah man thats what appellate courts do. then that may or may not be final depending on if the loser can show a novel element that can get them to scotus where the law would then be interpreted and thereby colored by that interpretation.

Dude, that is exactly what the scotus is, the last court of appeals.

This is why Democrats must not be allowed anywhere near a judge appointment.

the only questions that they entertain are ones about the law itself, you see what im saying? they dont judge facts of a case, they judge the law.

[Pedro I Rengel]

They are not there to color the law. They are there, supposed to be the most learned and capable you can find, to make damn sure the law is NOT being colored, but followed to the letter, because after the scotus there are no do-overs.

That is why they write opinions several pages long, each one of them.

[Pedro I Rengel]

the only questions that they entertain are ones about the law itself, you see what im saying? they dont judge facts of a case, they judge the law.

No you fool, you cannot judge the law. Lol, that is the duty of lawmakers.

Judges judge CASES. Yes, even the scotus. Ffs, their job is to make sure the laws passed by lawmakers are obeyed. Not rewrite them lol. Holy shit.

[Mr Reasonable]

They are not there to color the law. They are there, supposed to be the most learned and capable you can find, to make damn sure the law is NOT being colored, but followed to the letter, because after the scotus there are no do-overs.

you think a lady with 3 years experience is the most learned and capable we could find or you think they put her there for her activism? also please read my previous post about how they dont judge facts and instead judge the law itself which necessarily colors it. i cant believe im having to explain this no offense seriously you are cool but i think you really dont understand what the scotus does or the diff between them and a regular appellate court

[Mr Reasonable]

They are not there to color the law. They are there, supposed to be the most learned and capable you can find, to make damn sure the law is NOT being colored, but followed to the letter, because after the scotus there are no do-overs.

That is why they write opinions several pages long, each one of them.

ive read 100s of them i know

[Pedro I Rengel]

You don't judge the law. This is depressing. You judge a case, based on the law. That is what a judge does.

[Mr Reasonable]

the only questions that they entertain are ones about the law itself, you see what im saying? they dont judge facts of a case, they judge the law.

No you fool, you cannot judge the law. Lol, that is the duty of lawmakers.

Judges judge CASES. Yes, even the scotus. Ffs, their job is to make sure the laws passed by lawmakers are obeyed. Not rewrite them lol. Holy shit.

they decide a case by interpreting the law as it applies to a novel issue presented by the case and by that decision they expand of contract the law, ie, they judge the law.

[Pedro I Rengel]

They are not there to color the law. They are there, supposed to be the most learned and capable you can find, to make damn sure the law is NOT being colored, but followed to the letter, because after the scotus there are no do-overs.

That is why they write opinions several pages long, each one of them.

ive read 100s of them i know

Then you know they are not writing law lol holy shit. They go on and on about the law itself, to explain exactly WHY they decided if it was broken or not, because they have to explain that very carefully.

[Mr Reasonable]

You don't judge the law. This is depressing. You judge a case, based on the law. That is what a judge does.

so when scotus decides that an individual mandate to make people buy insurance is struck down what happens to the law?

[Mr Reasonable]

you should read scalias book hes right leaning youll like it very informative

https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpret ... 93W2YCA5JQ

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nothing happens to the law. It is only the fate of the individual mandate that is in question.

They have to make this decision, based on what the applicable law says.

Now, if you think a person that out and out considers their job to twist what law there be to whether they personally think it should be struck down or no, instead of someone that considers their job to figure out if it is legal or no based on applicable law, then you are exactly what I think you are, and must not be allowed to make judge appointments.

[Mr Reasonable]

if the individual mandate is part of the law and its struck down i feel like something is happening to the law just sayin

[Pedro I Rengel]

The question there is if the passing of that law does or does not break a higher ranking law, which we discussed.

[Mr Reasonable]

Nothing happens to the law. It is only the fate of the individual mandate that is in question.

They have to make this decision, based on what the applicable law says.

Now, if you think a person that out and out considers their job to twist what law there be to whether they personally think it should be struck down or no, instead of someone that considers their job to figure out if it is legal or no based on applicable law, then you are exactly what I think you are, and must not be allowed to make judge appointments.

i think acb was appointed to the highest court in the land with 3 years experience and that she has been vocal over many years about wanting to change the abortion laws

[Mr Reasonable]

with only 1 party voting for her

[Pedro I Rengel]

Like if Congress passes a law saying that sometimes citizens of the US do not have the right to a free trial, then someone can sue that that is an illegal law, because it breaks a constitutional law.

[Pedro I Rengel]

with only 1 party voting for her

This is such a stupid thing to say. I could as easily say with only 1 party voting against her, as a block, and it would warrant the same suspicion you are implying.

[Pedro I Rengel]

she has been vocal over many years about wanting to change the abortion laws

OK, source please.

[Mr Reasonable]

you yourself said that scotus appeals were final so what will you say if she votes to overturn roe v wade?

[Mr Reasonable]

with only 1 party voting for her

This is such a stupid thing to say. I could as easily say with only 1 party voting against her, as a block, and it would warrant the same suspicion you are implying.

dude the vote is a matter of public record. only gop senators voted to confirm her i dont know how thats controversial

[Pedro I Rengel]

you yourself said that scotus appeals were final so what will you say if she votes to overturn roe v wade?

I also said that the scouts can act as its own appeals, if it decides to.