By the way professor chimerinsky was being partisan. As conservatives have a problem with the bench when they over rule the legislature without have strong constitutional objections.. or when they just make up new areas of law out of penumbras.
Conservatives have a problem when they don't agree with someone. You are not stating fact much of the time, just opinion. It is a fact that conservatives don't agree with non conservatives, but that is just a difference of opinion really, because there is not a fact that can be contested. The Constitution exists, fact. The Constitution means what conservative say it means...is not a fact, it is an opinion. Constitutional objections have been there since the beginning, they will continue, there will be differences of opinion, and the losing side will be pissed off...judged offer opinions on the law, they do not make laws. Anything a judge or a court does can be overturned with a new law (amendment).
1. Your opinion is meaningless as you were the person arguing that judges don't make law. 2. and now you seem to forget it was Obama and the leftists like you who just criticized the florida judge who struck down Obamacare as being to activist. Don't you get tired of being so wrong and so ignorant on issues regarding the constitution and law. Go get a book on jurisprudence. So for the record are you still arguing judges don't make law?
1. Judges don't make laws. You have yet to quote any law the judges or courts have made. They have interpreted existing laws, but have created no new laws. You don't like their interpretations, well tough... 2. I have not said liberals don't complain when they lose, they do. Nature of the beast. Don't you get tired of claiming to be a lawyer, yet displaying such a poor grasp of the nature of who makes laws, and who interprets the law? Get a mind. If you want to engage in the insult game jem, you will lose, you do every time. So try to keep it simple and stick to the arguments and leave the emotionalism to the football game...
From: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l009.htm LAW Rules established by a governing authority to institute and maintain orderly coexistence. An act of Congress (state legislature) that has been signed by the president (governor) or passed over his veto by Congress. Public bills, when signed, become public laws, and are cited by the letters 'PL' and a hyphenated number. The two digits before the hyphen correspond to the Congress, and the one or more digits after the hyphen refer to the numerical sequence in which the bills were signed by the president during that Congress. (No mention at all of judges or courts making laws.)
I'm not going to sit through listening to his lifestory. What were his reason's for changing his mind? Myself I was a believer because of parental instruction. In early adulthood I questioned all beliefs and traditions instilled as a child . As a consequence of this re-evaluation of all things, I considered myself a devout atheist for apx 5-7yrs. Had an epiphany, lived as a monk for a year in a monastery. Perhaps my greatest failure in life was in leaving a paradise.
Could you summarize your "journey" as it were, from Scientology to "Theism", and also provide a basic synopsis of what Theism is, per your understanding? Thanks.
marbury vs. madison is the the seminal judge made law. three is no right to overule in Congress in the Constitution If you understood tort law 777z you would see the comedy.
Below is your opinion. Not a fact. You still don't get it do you? The Constitution is interpreted. It is not some scientific formula, it is the ideas of men who knew they were creating a document that would be interpreted. Look, the Constitution is not the word of God, it is the word of men, smart men who understood that conflicts of language and situations are evolving. So you are a strict constructionist...bully for you...but there is nothing in the Constitution that demands that judges or courts be strict constructionists. This is only one opinion. Judges and courts do not make law, they render opinions on cases based on their reading of the law, i.e. the Constitution, etc. The opinions of Marbury vs. Madison were just opinions, but they have held true and resisted any type of Constitutional amendment, primarily because the opinions were deemed reasonable by the super majority. So judges and courts do not make law, they interpret the law. There is a remedy for any court or judge's opinion, it is built into the system. Anytime you and your constructionists want to get a Constitutional amendment passed that claims to have special knowledge of what the Constitution means, like some preacher who claims to know what God means, go for it...become a Muslim like state where clerics rule on the basis of their fundamentalist read of ancient texts...