DACA must be restored rules federal judge
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
The expression "the peoples house" was used by Hamilton, I believe, when arguing that since the House of Representatives was elected by the people it was the most direct reflection of what the people wanted and should be given the most power. Recall that it was decided that the Senate should be appointed -- by the State Legislatures, if I recall correctly.
In Hamilton's time indentured servants, women, indians, and most blacks were disenfranchised. Hamilton's vision of "the people," seems today somewhat odd . Apparently it was accepted as reasonable in the patriarchal societies of the18th Century.
I would say your perception that personal bias and beliefs effect the rulings of Judges must be accurate, at least from my personal point of view, because I am one that believes we humans are inherently unable to divorce completely, not only instinct, but also our learned behavior and thinking from our decision processing. Education and experience, some may call it wisdom, are our primary defenses against our natural proclivities. To be capable of resisting bias completely in all matters that might come before a judge is asking for the impossible. But as they say, it won't hurt to ask.
What is sometimes called Strict Construction may describe someone who tries to judge on precisely what is written. Originalism describes someone who tries to divine what the drafters of a law intended, and rule on that basis. I will submit to you that it would be impossible to find a single example of any Judge in any of the higher Courts, i.e., the appeals courts, who professed to be either a strict constructionist or an originalist that was either of these things consistently. It is simply impossible. And when we are asking our appeals court judges to rule on the basis of the written law alone, I will submit to you that often enough it's an impossibility simply because of the nature of some of the cases brought. This is why we need appeals court judges with good training in the law and extensive experience, but beyond that we need those with something almost entirely subjective -- good judgement.
When statutory law is clear and clearly applies to a case -- and here we recognize that things that are very clear cut don't usually end up in trial court -- there is little question in these instances of the law being applied as written. But we are not referring to those kinds of cases. We are referring to those cases where the application of the law is less clear and clouded by nuance. And here it is simply an impossibility to follow the law as written, because there is no unequivocal law that applies. These are the cases that often end up in the appeals courts. Judges don't make new statutory law, but they do set precedents. These precedents are not binding on future courts, although future courts nearly always follow them. Is this what you mean by judges molding the law in a way they see fit? Isn't this what we ask them to do. Isn't this their job. How else would they handle these cases?
Last edited:
It was in Saskatoon, and I wasn't on the Supreme Court. The opinion was rendered as a left defenseman on the hockey team.
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Monday 3:00 PM
Partly Cloudy
84
°F | °C
Precipitation: 0%
Humidity: 32%
Wind: 21 mph
That's why I'm so good at it. Practice!Heh. You do left defense every day no matter where you are.
You only need to be clueless to be a lefty.
No practice required for you. You are a natural.
Yep, that's General McClernand- not Mclellan- there on the right I believe.
Lookin at Ruthie - has his hand over his stomach trying to hold his lunch down.
Hey Pie...
Are you a lawyer/judge or was that just some P&R bs that called you out as such?
This is totally not a baited question. I never knew this if this is in fact the case. Good on ya if so.
I think there's a couple lawyers that post here. Good writers at least if they're not.
I like lawyers lol...
Gotta say....."If I could do it all again".....
Thanks for the compliment, I guess?