Catholic priest views on god.

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Free Thinker, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    He had an evidence value to begin with. In other words, his worldview choice had already been made. He probably sucked as a priest unless he stuck to the easier questions his parishioners brought him.
     
    #21     Feb 4, 2011
  2. jem

    jem

    777 calls my answer emotional because he does not even realize how foolish he sounds.


    quote from 777.

    "Just as the opinions of judges influence the legal process, their opinions are not generation of laws, though it may appear that way from the ignorant point of view."

    proper answer -- from wikipedia - not where Common Law comes from.

    Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.
     
    #22     Feb 4, 2011
  3. Judges do not make law, a simple fact.

    They render opinion on whether laws that are made by legislative branch or executive order are constitutional.

    Period.

    Rowe vs. Wade did not make law, it simply stuck down existing laws as being unconstitutional.

    Judges make decisions about laws, they don't make laws.



     
    #23     Feb 4, 2011
  4. jem

    jem

    Last I checked CT does not even have statutes. Is all common law.
    Ask yourself who makes common law.

    Tell me when you have that Homer Simpson moment... and realize you made my point about needing to be a trained expert to have a valid opinion.
     
    #24     Feb 4, 2011
  5. Tell me a law that a modern day court made, and I will show you that it made no new law, it only ruled on an existing law, rendering an opinion and decision on that law as being valid or not.

    Courts absolutely do not make laws, they only strike down what they consider faulty laws made by others.


     
    #25     Feb 4, 2011
  6. However the Universe and Existence came to be ...ain't it Sum-thin? :D

    Wouldn't it be great if, after all the mystery, it turns out that whatever you believed or hoped to be your eternal reward
    was. That is of course if you were good. Even Idi Amin thought
    he never did anything wrong, so "Good" evaporates in a moral relativism of subjectivity, which means ...Everybody gets their deluxe apartment in the sky-- Just to be safe, I'm thinking about going the cryogenic route. Imagine, 1,000 years from now waking up to ...cyborgs.
     
    #26     Feb 4, 2011
  7. What makes you think the Cyborgs would let you wake up?

    :D

     
    #27     Feb 4, 2011
  8. It was in the contract???:D
     
    #28     Feb 4, 2011
  9. jem

    jem

    I will tell you one which bugs the shit out of me.

    In the 90s the law in CA was that if the 1st and second mortgages were held by the same lender at one time in the chain title... when the first foreclosed the rights of the second were merged into the rights of the first.

    this law made sense.

    Then early 2000s the ninth circuit had a case in which they changed the law saying that if at some point in time the second was sold to a bona fide purchaser, that purchaser could go after the borrower for the deficiency after a foreclosure, if the loan was a recourse loan -- regardless of the fact the two loans were once held by the same entity.

    They also made remarks which makes the whole previous area of case law less secure.

    there was no new statute. the ninth circuit just thought their new law was better so they left what was once a solid well settled area of CA foreclosure case law a bit of a mess.
     
    #29     Feb 5, 2011
  10. jem

    jem

    Judges do make law — it's their job
    By Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk
    Misleading and silly slogans about what judges do are dominating the debate about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

    President Bush and Republican politicians constantly repeat, as a mantra, that Roberts is a desirable choice because he won't "legislate from the bench" and will merely "apply the law, not make it."

    But every lawyer knows that judges make law — it's their job. In fact, law students learn in the first semester that almost all tort law (governing accidental injuries), contract law and property law are made by judges. Legislatures did not create these rules; judges did, and they continue to do so when they revise the rules over time.

    Indeed, one of the most fundamental doctrines of American law — the authority of courts to declare laws unconstitutional — is entirely made by judges. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution mention the power of judicial review, and it may fairly be debated whether the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a power.
    '....


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-23-forum-judges_x.htm


    by the way zzz 7 you are arguing the conservative argument... and you are doing an absurd job of it.
     
    #30     Feb 5, 2011