Posted on 03/31/2005 3:11:22 PM PST by Crackingham
It appears that the grant of de novo review might be close to a slam dunk as being held unconstitutional based on reading Birch's opinion on the 11th circuit. I don't know enough to have my own opinion, but in the face of that, the impeachment thing is going nowhere. Well, it was going nowhere anyway. Delay is just throwing red meat at the wolves. The ethics charges against Delay appear to be serious based on my reading of a WSJ editorial blasting Delay on the matter. I suspect he is going the way of Newt, and in the not too distant future. Thank heavens he is not Speaker, or he really would reap substantial dividends for the Dems.
Yes, it is.
Your senators are my senators and will probably be nay-voting deadweight, but we can encourage others, and (depending on how close to the city we live) our reps.
The impeachment issue is an idle threat, and doesn't address the real problem anyway. The problem with the judiciary is far deeper than one or two or twelve or twenty judges. Until this specific case, there was not much interest in doing something about it. There still might not be much interest. See post 271. The reason Congress should assert itself has to do with the judiciary's decision to tell COngress to pound sand on the de novo hearing requirement but also on the subpeona. Judge Greer and federal judges (including Birch) told Congress that the legislative branch has no powers other than what the judicial branch grants it. THat position is a natural outgrowth of the last thirty years of judicial activism.
The ethics charges against DeLay are a red herring and merely personalizes the issue. Whether DeLay is in Congress or not does not change the nature of the problem between the legislative and judicial branches.
Appology accepted.
This case has really brought to the forefront to me that the medical profession really does kill patients before their bodies and brains are ready to go. I suspected it with my mother, my stepfather, and my stepmother.
Everybody says this just shows the importance of having directives. The only problem with directives is if you write you want no life support what if you just had pneumonia (still young age) where you were not able to breath. In that situation a lung machine would keep you alive long enough to get over the pneumonia. If you had said no artificial help then they would let you die.
My parents all had directives. This made it simple for the medical profession to start the process. All of them at the end didn't really want to die.
Speaking of process. Did you hear Felos today in his grandios appearance in front of the media, say that the hospice nurses came to him and Michael and said; "You need to come now as we are ready to start the final process?"
That is not what happened. Congress did not purport to change the rules of federal court procedure, and if they had, the law would never have made it out of the Senate. The Whittemore case acceped de novo jurisdiction, at least for the moment, and then applied the unchanged law and rules to consider an injunction motion. You may not like it, but that was and remains the law. I suspect in time the law would have been deemed unconstitutional, but that was not in play here, and will not be, because the case is now moot.
However, the judge ruled against her case with only a few hours of consideration and without hearing the necessary evidence.
Tell me where I can sign up.
The legislature can impeach for any reason it jolly well pleases. They have no dog on the courts' side of the fight.
The judge can only deal with what's presented to him.
Blame lawyer Gibbs for being clueless in a federal court.
Yes, it can, but it won't, nor should it.
That doesn't seem to be a twoway street. The courts often tell the legislature what to do. In Mass. they ordered the legislature to pass a law allowing same sex marriage. Is that kosher?
1) "According to my dictionary SHALL is the same as SHOULD, meaning 'OUGHT to'";Don't know what dictionary you're using, Spunky; but here's the legal definition of "shall"--from Black's Law Dictionary:2) "The Congress did not say 'You will' or 'You must'"; and,
3) "The wording of 'Shall' gave them permission to do so.
Shall. As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. [emphasis added] In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term "shall" is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning, as denoting obligation. [emphasis added] It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which mnay be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears. People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal.App. 752, 13 P.2d 989, 992.After reading all of that definition, doesn't it become much less difficult to why it all depends on what the legal definition of "Is." is?But [emphasis added] it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Wisdom v. Board of Sup'rs of Polk County, 236 Iowa 669, 19 N.W.2d 602, 607, 608.
Pick one. You can't have both. The courts pay no attention to our laws. If you abide by whatever they say despite the blatant fact that they ignore our laws, then we have no laws. Only rulers. And if they want to be our rulers without law, we have no reason whatever to abide by anything they say.
Who's the only one to give the shoulds but the legislature itself?
"Two words: DO IT"
My bet is they won't.
Nobody.
Perhaps you don't recall, but this happened over a long Easter weekend when they weren't considering anything, period. They were called back for this, they weren't interrupted in anything but their vacations. Many didn't even come back. Perhaps they were considering the nuclear option and SS reform in their heads. If so, maybe you are right.
You know what? I am so sick and tired of being attacked when I make any sort of moderate stand or indicate that I don't totally believe one way or the other. I attempted to go on a liberal group as well and brought up points made here. Attacked as well, but not personally as some people do here. I guess you gotta be one way or the other, and you can't believe your "side" is wrong, or inconsistent, on any issue at any time. This includes moderation or being "in the middle."
Do you have a link so that I can be on a MODERATE newsgroup?
After reading all of that definition, doesn't it become much less difficult to understand why it all depends on what the legal definition of "Is." is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.