Marbury v Madison:
No ruling changes the law. No ruling alters the law. Every ruling applies the law--no more and no less than this.It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
The Court does not invalidate the law. The Constitution invalidates laws repugnant to it. The Court applies the Constitution to the law, and the law to the case, in that order of precedence....the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
I don't think she was a very good choice imo... like other's, I'm okay with a dem, repub, alien, cow, anyone that will respect the constitution, and the word of law.. but.. I don't think she will.. and I think her nomination was more of a token.. "See, we got the first black president and now we've got the first hispanic supreme court judge... AND SHE'S A WOMAN!"
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.
No, actually, it isn't. Because in a straight democracy, legislative action is defined by the majority, WITH NO CAPACITY for interpretation of those laws in light of founding documents.And this is an irrelevancy.
I wonder how long it will take Corynn to kiss Rushes a** after this statement.
< I think it's terrible," Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered" Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”>
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney - Blogs from CNN.com
Someone must have reminded him that his district is in Texas and Texas has a sizable Hispanic population, as well as when Sotomayor made this statement (“Hispanic women would make better judges than white men”) hardly qualifies as racism.
Someone please show me the country where Hispanics originated.
Last edited by Donc; 05-29-09 at 09:42 AM.
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
Remember, the court says what the law is, not what the law should be. The court can only declare a law to be in contravention to the Constitution. The invalidity of the law derives from the principle that, as explained in Marbury, a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Thus, a law which is deemed unconstitutional is not suddenly overturned and repealed--it is held to never have been in force. A legislature cannot pass a law that violates the constitution. Every aspect of the legislative process, including the oath legislators take when they assume office, precludes this (at the Federal level, at least, Congressmen and Senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution). If a law were passed knowing it to be a violation of the Constitution, the legislators passing such a law would be in violation of their oath, would be acting outside their capacity as legislators, and thus the passage of such a law would be nullified.
Judges who seek to rewrite the law depart from their proper role of declaring what the law is, and venture into the legislative role of declaring what the law should be. Judges who do that need to be impeached and removed from the bench, not elevated to the Supreme Court.
Last edited by celticlord; 05-29-09 at 09:46 AM.
In any case, arguing about whether they actually are oppressed is beside the point. The point is that she perceives them as both oppressed and views that oppression as an opportunity to gain wisdom. All you are accomplishing by arguing that they're not oppressed is depriving her of her claim to wisdom, not establishing that she is racist.
So, stating that one has been oppressed due to racism and chauvinism and that one has gained wisdom thereby is racist? And how is it 'playing a victim'? Can you arrange the matter into a step by step formally logical argument so that I can follow your reasoning... I must be too dense to see it on my own.What you say is even worse, being racist and playing the victim card all in one shot.
Last edited by Dezaad; 05-29-09 at 12:40 PM.
Oppressed groups of people have opportunities to gain wisdom that other groups are not presented with. It's as simple as that.