There isn’t a single Supreme Court case that should be a split decision. Law is law - why can’t lawyers agree? The Supreme Court is the biggest, scariest joke.
I see this as a startling problem. If you have the most pre-eminent ‘experts’ disputing a law’s interpretation, then we either have problems in the way laws are written or we allow said ‘experts’ to interpret meaning which can be interpreted in opposing viewpoints. So why have law at all?
No. Think of it this way: How are there so many interpretations of the Bible? This is inherenat in rule-making.
Let me give you the first lesson every law student gets. Battery.
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Okay. Cool. Straight forward. You punch someone, that's a battery. But what if I grab your collar (like bullies do to kids while threatening them)? Let's see: It's an intentional act. We can categorize it as an "offensive contact." And it occured. But did it? Was it a contact with "the person"? I didn't touch you. I touched your shirt. So, courts now interpret (or legislators write into their battery statutes) "person" as the clothing and objects the person is in contact with. So, if you're holding something and I knock it out of your hand that is contact with your "person." Or if I kick your bike you're riding.
But what if I blow cigarrete smoke in your face? Is that a battery? What's making contact with you? The courts rule that the particles are a battery. Okay. What if I make you go into contact with germs? Radiation? These are all real court cases.
What about "intent"? That's a whole problem. A man is swinging a stick keeping dogs away from him and backs into you and his stick hits your eye. Battery? Probably not (but my torts class had a problem with this one).
What's an "offensive" contact? If I'm poking you, is that offensive?
I think now you're thinking of vagueness. That is a legal doctrine. A statute can be "void for vagueness." This happens when the statute is found to be written in such a broad manner that we don't know what it means. There's another doctrine (whose name fails me) that voids laws that are simply too broad.
And all this shows why you can't just write a law "Killing bad." You can see Plato detailing how there's different types of murder in his Laws Book 9. He realized you can kill panned and intentionally, by accident, or in the heat of anger...And all of these require different punishments. And we have these distinctions written into our laws today.
And that's just the obvious stuff. You run into big trouble when you want to tax money, and other more complicated areas of law.
Why we have law is a deep subject. But I like Aeschylus' story in Eumenides. So, you have the Curse of the House of Atreus. You had one guy kill another, who kills another in revenge, who is then killed in revenge, who is then killed in revenge....So the gods then step in, seeing a third party as necessary to stop the cycle of killing. The gods established a court system to do so. You need the courts to bring finality by taking punishment out of the parties' hands.
I appreciate the thought process but the fact that the Supreme Court can argue the same case but have totally different outcomes simply by virtue of Justice makeup is a problem. I have NO faith in that body.
Simple: If an immigrant gets on public assistance benefits (Welfare, EBT, WIC, etc), then it negatively affects their chances at getting a green card and on the path towards citizenship.
The left has argued that this is racist since it will primarily affect "people of color" more than, say, European or Asian immigrants, who tend to be self sufficient upon arrival.
This is key as now the millions of "refugees" soaking up taxpayer funded assistance programs (that were intended to be used by taxpayers who had paid into the system to use in times of temporary financial distress) who have never paid a dime into the system, and who are generally never going to be net contributors to society.
No bet there:
Kagan
Darth Bader
Sotomayor
Breyer
Frightening isn't it
Justice John Roberts sided with Trump administration so that’s a good sign
Roberts is a snake, and his death will not come soon enough.
YEAH!!! Dear President Trump-- more judges ASAP please!
Remember this when someone tells you it doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Nice to know settled law is settled law...
This is big league!
There isn’t a single Supreme Court case that should be a split decision. Law is law - why can’t lawyers agree? The Supreme Court is the biggest, scariest joke.
Assuming you don't already, you should read the opinions from the scotus website. They're a lot less straightforward than you'd think.
Because life is complicated, law is complicated.
I see this as a startling problem. If you have the most pre-eminent ‘experts’ disputing a law’s interpretation, then we either have problems in the way laws are written or we allow said ‘experts’ to interpret meaning which can be interpreted in opposing viewpoints. So why have law at all?
No. Think of it this way: How are there so many interpretations of the Bible? This is inherenat in rule-making.
Let me give you the first lesson every law student gets. Battery.
Okay. Cool. Straight forward. You punch someone, that's a battery. But what if I grab your collar (like bullies do to kids while threatening them)? Let's see: It's an intentional act. We can categorize it as an "offensive contact." And it occured. But did it? Was it a contact with "the person"? I didn't touch you. I touched your shirt. So, courts now interpret (or legislators write into their battery statutes) "person" as the clothing and objects the person is in contact with. So, if you're holding something and I knock it out of your hand that is contact with your "person." Or if I kick your bike you're riding.
But what if I blow cigarrete smoke in your face? Is that a battery? What's making contact with you? The courts rule that the particles are a battery. Okay. What if I make you go into contact with germs? Radiation? These are all real court cases.
What about "intent"? That's a whole problem. A man is swinging a stick keeping dogs away from him and backs into you and his stick hits your eye. Battery? Probably not (but my torts class had a problem with this one).
What's an "offensive" contact? If I'm poking you, is that offensive?
I think now you're thinking of vagueness. That is a legal doctrine. A statute can be "void for vagueness." This happens when the statute is found to be written in such a broad manner that we don't know what it means. There's another doctrine (whose name fails me) that voids laws that are simply too broad.
And all this shows why you can't just write a law "Killing bad." You can see Plato detailing how there's different types of murder in his Laws Book 9. He realized you can kill panned and intentionally, by accident, or in the heat of anger...And all of these require different punishments. And we have these distinctions written into our laws today.
And that's just the obvious stuff. You run into big trouble when you want to tax money, and other more complicated areas of law.
Why we have law is a deep subject. But I like Aeschylus' story in Eumenides. So, you have the Curse of the House of Atreus. You had one guy kill another, who kills another in revenge, who is then killed in revenge, who is then killed in revenge....So the gods then step in, seeing a third party as necessary to stop the cycle of killing. The gods established a court system to do so. You need the courts to bring finality by taking punishment out of the parties' hands.
I appreciate the thought process but the fact that the Supreme Court can argue the same case but have totally different outcomes simply by virtue of Justice makeup is a problem. I have NO faith in that body.
Let's enforce existing law.
What a concept.
Someone please ELIAOC this?
Simple: If an immigrant gets on public assistance benefits (Welfare, EBT, WIC, etc), then it negatively affects their chances at getting a green card and on the path towards citizenship.
The left has argued that this is racist since it will primarily affect "people of color" more than, say, European or Asian immigrants, who tend to be self sufficient upon arrival.
This is key as now the millions of "refugees" soaking up taxpayer funded assistance programs (that were intended to be used by taxpayers who had paid into the system to use in times of temporary financial distress) who have never paid a dime into the system, and who are generally never going to be net contributors to society.
Thanks, got it.
This vote is clear evidence of a corrupt court. The 4 should be arrested for treason.
Soon
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a785_j4ek.pdf
Thank you!
Isn't this in the Constitution?