[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. So the largest "news" organization in the country is distinctly pro-evangalist, along with the top half-dozen talking heads.

I'm glad you helped me out that dishonest "they are all against us" bull-pucky.

But I thought to you Fox wasn't a news agency?????

Now it is????????

The only reason why it became teh largest news agency ion America is because people needed a relief from the leftist tilt of ABCCNBC.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." - Marbury v. Madison

That's what I'm referring to.

Yup, that is tyrtue- that was the first ruling that left common law and was a the early start to statutory law and legislation by judicial fiat. This also is unconstitutional.

It is the legislative branch that determines what law is and the judicial branch only determines whether teh law was enacted under constitutional principles. We have long been since removed from that constitutional principle. For over a century law studetns studied Blackstones Common Laws of England to understand what law was. This was the basis for law in America. Teh first 140 or so pages laid out the biblical precepts and principles that controlled English Common Law. This was also the foundation for American common law as all law studetns studied Blackstones.

Marbury v. Madison in 1803 - SCOTUS gave itself the power to review the actions ofg the other parts of ther fed and declare them unconstitutional if it so deemed.

In Fletcher v. Peck 1810 -SCOTUS gave itself the power to invalidate state law.

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 1816- It declared itself the single final interpreter of federal law and the Constitution.

In Cohenv. Virginia 1821 It authorized itself to review state criminal proceedings.

So after looking at the authority the Constitution gave teh judiciary and the the authority the judiciary gave itself- there is a large discrepancy.

That is why teh dogfights over federal judicial appointments- cuz we are living in an era when the judicial branch makes law as well as judges law.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Yup, that is tyrtue- that was the first ruling that left common law and was a the early start to statutory law and legislation by judicial fiat. This also is unconstitutional.

We've never left common law.

From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

And concerning SCOTUS:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. —Smith v. Allwright

England doesn't have a constitution. We can't look always to their common law for precedent in some cases.

It is the legislative branch that determines what law is

They author laws. The courts determine if they're actually laws and strikes them down if they're not. That is what is ironic about your complaint. Common law is practically written by the judges via the history of their decisions.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

We've never left common law.

From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

And concerning SCOTUS:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. —Smith v. Allwright

England doesn't have a constitution. We can't look always to their common law for precedent in some cases.



They author laws. The courts determine if they're actually laws and strikes them down if they're not. That is what is ironic about your complaint. Common law is practically written by the judges via the history of their decisions.

Well I cannot write down teh enormous stuff needed to show that America has leftr The Common Law in favor of statutory law as a guiding principle. I can recommend a few books though.

The Common Law was firmly rooted in Scripture as its undergirding( as shown in Blackstones) and we know that has not been the case for along time now.

Scotus may say they are prepared to overturn precedent when necessary- but action shows that it takes enormous enormous weight for them to overule former SCotus ruling.

There is a difference between common law and The Common Law.

Brief History on Our American Common Law

They author laws. The courts determine if they're actually laws and strikes them down if they're not. That is what is ironic about your complaint. Common law is practically written by the judges via the history of their decisions.

Roe v. Wade is the law of teh land. No congress wrote that into existence- it happened by judicial interpretation.

therein lies teh difference when we were guided by "The Common Law" there were absolutes and all legislative and judicial rulings were compared to that . NOw we have ruling by statute.
Precedent and interpretation weigh more than absolute principles. We were founded as a constitutional republic. Which meant we had bedrock principles

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

But I thought to you Fox wasn't a news agency?????

Now it is????????

It is in the mind of the person who made the claim (you)... and it is in the context of what was meant (since the same thing that makes me bash it is exactly the property you were discussing)

The only reason why it became teh largest news agency ion America is because people needed a relief from the leftist tilt of ABCCNBC.

That's like saying first that all hamburger places shun happy-meals, and then that McDonalds is only as big as it is because people need a break from burger-hut.

Also: what does it have to do with the discussion? You were wrong. Fess up and move on.

That is why teh dogfights over federal judicial appointments- cuz we are living in an era when the judicial branch makes law as well as judges law.

Let's clear this up right now. ALL such major fights are posturing on the part of congressmen who want political advantage. Period.

There may be some individuals out there who care on any given issue about the issue iteslf: but they are impotent.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I cannot write down teh enormous stuff needed to show that America has leftr The Common Law in favor of statutory law as a guiding principle.

America hasn't abandoned common law. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is wrong then please explain. We don't exclusively practice common law though. We never have.

Scotus may say they are prepared to overturn precedent when necessary- but action shows that it takes enormous enormous weight for them to overule former SCotus ruling.

It's happened a few hundred times since 1810.

There is a difference between common law and The Common Law.

Yes. The latter is the title of a book. The former is what England has used since the middle ages.

Roe v. Wade is the law of teh land. No congress wrote that into existence- it happened by judicial interpretation.

I know. Common law is built on judicial decision (case law) rather than legislative statutes. So...what is your point?

therein lies teh difference when we were guided by "The Common Law" there were absolutes and all legislative and judicial rulings were compared to that.

You've got it backwards. A constitution is absolute. Common law, on the other hand, emerges from history. At some point there is a strong precedent, but it's not the same thing, obviously.

NOw we have ruling by statute.

What do you mean "now"? The constitution granted the power to enact statutory law from the get go.

[nolidad]

[That's like saying first that all hamburger places shun happy-meals, and then that McDonalds is only as big as it is because people need a break from burger-hut.

False analogy.

Let's clear this up right now. ALL such major fights are posturing on the part of congressmen who want political advantage. Period.

thats your claim- where is the evidence to validate it though?

What do you mean "now"? The constitution granted the power to enact statutory law from the get go.

I will have to work this out better. Because it is tied to this:

Yes. The latter is the title of a book. The former is what England has used since the middle ages.

It has more to do witht he whys of what we do than the whats of what we do(If that makes sense)

You've got it backwards. A constitution is absolute. Common law, on the other hand, emerges from history. At some point there is a strong precedent, but it's not the same thing, obviously.

Well I may have muddled up some terminologies or placed them in the wrong spot. Once again it is more the philosophy of how decisions are being made than the mechanics of the decisions. I will try to define this better, as it deqals with the philosophical undergirding sof the Constitution and the Law. Both were held to be given to men by God. Oliver Wendell Holmes had been pushing since 1887 to have man and not God decide what law is. His book on teh common law written in 1887 pushed that argument. Also in 1917 in a dissenting opinion he wrote "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in teh sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or qausi sovereign that can be identified.

Case law does develop. We do gather a history of decision making in areas. But since th elate 1870's teh shift in legal tinking went to man developing case law based on man, versus man developing case law based on the God of Man as was expressed int eh major textbook of the time- Blackstones Commentaries.

Once gain I want to stress it was as hift first in philosphy that then brought about a shift in the mechanics of how case law expanded and jurists became as much legislators (if they choset to) as the legislators. It was a distinct shift from a belief in biblical standards restricting judicial opinions to jurists restricitn themselves to judicial opinion.

[Dwight Schrute]

and another thread is hijacked by Nolidad and JerryLove, the original CGR Yin and Yang

not sure what the laws are like across the pond on this or "free speech". regardless, this is eerily like something straight out of Acts, with the Apostles being released from prison and ordered not to preach in public again.