Posted on 01/29/2010 11:13:04 AM PST by GonzoII
On what grounds? It's a very simply question. Did the Court reach the merits of Miller's argument or not?
Whose natural law? Yours? The Muzzies? Native American paganists?
With all respect to Hamilton, the reality of our political landscape is much more diverse that his was. You'll forgive me if I desire to not mix my legal debate with your theological ideology.
How about the Natural law that the Founders relied on the Declaration of Independence? The same one shared by Blackstone?
With all respect to Hamilton, the reality of our political landscape is much more diverse that his was.
Why don't you say what you really mean?
You'll forgive me if I desire to not mix my legal debate with your theological ideology.
Again, your tactics are quite telling.
moron
Varying circuits have applied Baker in varying ways. It may be the law of the land, by that law is remarkably under-defined. Until the Supreme rules more definitively, it's impossible to predict what the "law of the land" will be.
Take a look at Wilson v. Ake. The Court didn't have any problem figuring out how Baker applied.
I find it interesting that you seek to try to limit the holding of Baker as much as possible. Could it be that another agenda is bubbling underneath the surface?
The court cited the law of the case doctrine, so you know that they didn't rule on the merits of this case. So what? Their ruling still binds the lower courts to the custody/visitation order of the Vermont court.
And, the Vermont court followed their statutory law. The child custody has been determined and the Virginia Supreme has ruled that determination is binding in Virginia.
jackass.
And do you believe that the judge is following the law in this case? If so, please cite the exact statute that demands that a minor child be given to a non-biological adult over the biological mother.
No sweetheart. I couldn't care less about this case, or homo marriage. And, domestic law is about as far removed from my area of practice as you can get. You'll forgive me if I'm not up on the latest rulings stemming from a 1970's MN Supreme Court case.
But, I have picked up on a disturbing trend amongst people who say that they're conservative thinking, but they sure do want some judicial activism when a particular case doesn't go their way.
I'll say it one last time - judicial activism isn't OK when anyone does it or advocates for it, especially conservatives.
With that in mind, how did Chief Justice Hassell characterize the VA Court of Appeals ruling in his concurring opinion?
And, the Vermont court followed their statutory law. The child custody has been determined and the Virginia Supreme has ruled that determination is binding in Virginia.
No, the Virginia Supreme Court never reached the merits of the case, as we already established.
It might help if you read the whole thread. See post #35. the statute is cited. You can read it for yourself.
OK, so what is your position on the homosexual agenda in general and same-sex "marriage" in particular?
And, domestic law is about as far removed from my area of practice as you can get. You'll forgive me if I'm not up on the latest rulings stemming from a 1970's MN Supreme Court case.
They are quite important to the "law is the law" discussion, if what I suspect is true.
But, I have picked up on a disturbing trend amongst people who say that they're conservative thinking, but they sure do want some judicial activism when a particular case doesn't go their way.
What is your definition of judicial activism?
I'll say it one last time - judicial activism isn't OK when anyone does it or advocates for it, especially conservatives.
So that premise applies to Lawrence v. Texas, correct?
Glenn Beck’s show did an excellent job today of explaining why we are getting such bad case law... if you missed his show today I recommend the re-run... very interesting how they no longer study the constitution in law school — but case law instead... this all came about as part of the progressive movement of the 20th century.
Why would a Virginia court rule on the merits of a Vermont custody case? The only obligation the Virginia court has is to determine if the VT court's decision is binding. These are two separate questions.
"No, the Virginia Supreme Court never reached the merits of the case, as we already established."
The merits of the custody determination are irrelevant to whether or not that determination is binding in VA. Should I type slower, or can you keep up?
Steve-b is the biggest a-hole troll on FR. His post is not surprising in the least.
When the law and those who administer it have contempt for natural rights, discord, strife and violence will always follow. The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are two that examples that come to mind. Peace happens when people insure their neighbors natural rights are protected.
Nice try. It wasn't the merits of the Vermont Custody case that were in question, but whether or not the Vermont Custody order contravened Virginia's public policy regarding same-sex unions. The VA Supreme Court never reached the merits of the case.
(You might be able to play games with some people on here, but you are not going to win at those games with me.)
The merits of the custody determination are irrelevant to whether or not that determination is binding in VA. Should I type slower, or can you keep up?
The merits on whether or not Virginia's DOMA would prevent enforcement of the Vermont Custody order are hardly irrelevant. That is the question that the VA Supreme Court couldn't reach because of res judicata. At least one of the Justices on the Court believed that VA's DOMA was very relevant. It is a virtual certainty that others on the Court thought the exact same thing, because they want to great pains to ensure to emphasize that they were not reaching the merits of the case, and that res judicata only applied to the parties and current case before the Court.
I'm against, but it might be the right decision for you.
"They are quite important to the "law is the law" discussion, if what I suspect is true. "
Really, I'm quite sure that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the merits of any homosexual marriage or civil union case. It's very much unsettled law.
"What is your definition of judicial activism? "
If you are a jurist who is substituting your political beliefs (to include your moral, philosophical or religious beliefs) in the place of the written law to reach a decision you believe is just or in keeping with your political philosophy, then you are a judicial activist.
Sometimes - especially in lower court - jurists have to decide a case in a manner that they personal believe is immoral or unjust, but they are bound by oath to follow the law. It seems many here today are advocating that jurists abandon that oath to make decisions that they find more philosophically or theologically palatable.
"So that premise applies to Lawrence v. Texas, correct?"
Sure. Although I would never vote for a politician who thought that what went on in your bedroom was any of his business. This decision probably sets bad precedent for other unrelated cases, but I'm not going to cry over the fact that people in TX aren't going to be prosecuted for activities between two consenting adults. It's none of my business.
You are against what exactly? Please be specific?
Really, I'm quite sure that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the merits of any homosexual marriage or civil union case. It's very much unsettled law.
We already established that you are mistaken. Baker is a decision on the merits, albeit a summary decision. Period. It is the law. The lower courts are bound to follow Baker until the Supreme Court instructs otherwise.
If you are a jurist who is substituting your political beliefs (to include your moral, philosophical or religious beliefs) in the place of the written law to reach a decision you believe is just or in keeping with your political philosophy, then you are a judicial activist. Sometimes - especially in lower court - jurists have to decide a case in a manner that they personal believe is immoral or unjust, but they are bound by oath to follow the law. It seems many here today are advocating that jurists abandon that oath to make decisions that they find more philosophically or theologically palatable.
Do you believe that there is ever a time when the written law so conflicts with Natural Law that you would not obey it?
Let's go back to my earlier questions. If the Constitution were amended to ban the civilian possession of firearms, would you turn in your weapons?
Do you have a point where YOU would refuse to obey the law, or are you really going to stick with your "the law is the law" premise? (I suspect that we both know that there would come a point where even you would disregard human law for your own notions of morality.)
Sure. Although I would never vote for a politician who thought that what went on in your bedroom was any of his business. This decision probably sets bad precedent for other unrelated cases, but I'm not going to cry over the fact that people in TX aren't going to be prosecuted for activities between two consenting adults. It's none of my business.
So because you like the outcome of Lawrence, you aren't going to get that upset about it? How is that consistent with your position?
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.