Arrogant judges making law...

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Not an attorney, are 'ya? Or an epistolologist?

Nope. And I don't need an attorney or a jury to tell me
what a fact is.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Matt Barrow wrote:

Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...

He was known to phrase it that way outside the court, and that is what is taught
in some law classes at Yale. The more correct version was stated in Marbury vs
Madison and goes "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is."

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...

He was known to phrase it that way outside the court, and that is what is
taught
in some law classes at Yale. The more correct version was stated in
Marbury vs
Madison and goes "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is."

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Not an attorney, are 'ya? Or an epistolologist?

Nope. And I don't need an attorney or a jury to tell me
what a fact is.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like



Is that a fact?


;-)

The real issue with the trial by jury, is that the jurors are allowed
to hear only what the Judge wants them to hear... Now there are lies
of commission and lies of omission, and juries are constantly fed more
lies by omission than what comes out of the mouths of the liars on the
stand... Look, I'm a big boy and since the day I saw my first argument
in the recess yard I know that when there is an argument there are
liars... So, when I'm a juror let both sides drag in everyone they want
and tell the story any way they want, and I'll sift through the chaff
for the kernals of wheat... I'm hopefully waiting for the day that a
jury renders a verdict, is turned loose, and when they find out how
much was kept from them by the Judge, which would have reversed their
verdict, file a complaint with the Chief Justice of that state...

denny

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
The real issue with the trial by jury, is that the jurors are allowed
to hear only what the Judge wants them to hear... Now there are lies
of commission and lies of omission, and juries are constantly fed more
lies by omission than what comes out of the mouths of the liars on the
stand... Look, I'm a big boy and since the day I saw my first argument
in the recess yard I know that when there is an argument there are
liars... So, when I'm a juror let both sides drag in everyone they want
and tell the story any way they want, and I'll sift through the chaff
for the kernals of wheat... I'm hopefully waiting for the day that a
jury renders a verdict, is turned loose, and when they find out how
much was kept from them by the Judge, which would have reversed their
verdict, file a complaint with the Chief Justice of that state...

Even if they could, would they even be bright enough? Remember, the biggest
hazard to a jury trial is having a group of 12 that was too dumb to get out
of jury duty.

denny

http://www.fija.org

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
constitutionality?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
constitutionality?

SOCUS hears cases that have been appealed to it through the U.S. District courts
and Appeals courts. The judges in these courts frequently make decisions that
are not appealed, and those decisions determine what the law is. Note that
Marshall said "the judicial branch." SOCUS is only a small part of the judicial
branch.

Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote:
...
Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If
you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.


Oops, not true. The Supreme Court also decides matters where there's
a conflict among the Circuits as to a rule of law. Example: federal
tax issues, which very rarely are Constitutional matters except in
criminal tax cases.

Fred F.