Someone smarter than I, give me some ammo to refute this - re: Kim Davis

[TlalocW]

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=32128

TlalocW

[steve2470]

1. This part is complete BS, SCOTUS rulings ARE law whether they like it or not

A corollary to the maxim that we are a nation of laws is that we are decidedly NOT a nation of “rulings.” A court ruling is not a “law,” it is a “ruling.” It may have the force of law due to the abject acquiescence of a meekly compliant people, but it is not a law. A “law” is not a “law” unless it is enacted according to constitutional procedure. Under our Constitution, courts have no power to make or change law, none whatsoever.

[Egnever]

2. Agreed complete nonsense.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[X_Digger]

3. Care to copy / paste the image here? I'm not turning adblock off just so they can get $0.001. n/t

[REP]

4. Why bother?

They won't learn.

Basically, the bough, the Judiciary Branch rules on where laws are constitutional or not. It was found unconstitutional to deny equal protection to deny any couple of the age of consent the right to legal marriage.

[djean111]

5. It seems to me that this guy is using faux logic.

The Supreme Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional.
It is not constitutional to deprive any American citizen of his/her rights.
The Supreme Court does not ever PASS laws, it just decides whether a law is unconstitutional, by making a ruling on a suit brought before it. Or it may decide that a particular law has been broken or applies to the matter at hand.

This person is proceeding as if SCOTUS is actually enacting or getting rid of laws. No, it is just deciding whether a law is constitutional. Can you imagine what laws would look like if the laws did not have to be constitutional?

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

11. Thanks. You got it right, especially with your faux logic statement. Even Faux Noise

is suddenly airing experts who realize what the Constitution actually says.

As reported by The New Civil Rights Movement, Faux Noise legal experts agree. Great video at the link if you can stand to watch Faux Noise.

Fox News Legal Panel: Kim Davis' Attorney's Defense Is 'Stunningly Obtuse' And 'Ridiculously Stupid'

Chip Merlin told Fox News' "Happening Now" host Gregg Jarrett that Davis' chances of winning an appeal are "pretty slim, almost none."

Jarrett noted that Davis "can still practice her faith, just not on the job in a way that interferes with the legal rights of the citizens she serves. And in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court said so nine years ago."

And he quoted the 2006 SCOTUS ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos: "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."

Jarrett then played a clip of Davis' attorney, Mat Staver, saying it is "questionable" whether the Supreme Court has the "constitutional authority" to rule that same-sex couples have a right to marry.

Calling Staver's statement "stunningly obtuse," the incredulous Fox New host explained how the law works.

"Whether the Supreme Court has constitutional authority?" Jarrett repeated. "Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court constitutional authority to decide constitutional issues!"

[L. Coyote]

6. We’re sorry, but a plugin/addon installed on your browser is interfering with the complete display..

Rendering error!

We’re sorry, but a plugin/addon installed on your browser is interfering with the complete display of the pages on this site. Please disabled the following plugins/addons to continue.

Ad Block Plus

............................

They want me to turn off my plug-in so they can display an image from an ad site. Not going to happen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. You don't have to turn off Adblock.

Just go to the Adblock icon and disable it for the specific site, then re-enable it. Not that I thought the article was worth the powder to blow it to Hell, as my dear departed grandpa would say.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. It's absolute nonsense and completely wrong.

The article says courts have no power to make or overturn laws, which, if the writer had stayed awake during his/her middle school civics class, he/she would know is incorrect. This statement, upon which their entire argument is based, is just plain false:

A corollary to the maxim that we are a nation of laws is that we are decidedly NOT a nation of “rulings.” A court ruling is not a “law,” it is a “ruling.” It may have the force of law due to the abject acquiescence of a meekly compliant people, but it is not a law. A “law” is not a “law” unless it is enacted according to constitutional procedure. Under our Constitution, courts have no power to make or change law, none whatsoever.

This ignores Article III, sec. 2 of the Constitution:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In other words, the power of the supreme court extends to all cases... arising under the Constitution. This means the court has the power to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, which is the whole point of the concept of checks and balances. That has been the decided and unchallenged law since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

The article, and the web site where it appears, is a lot of right-wing crap. The author obviously doesn't know any more about constitutional law than Sarah Palin.

[treestar]

8. Marbury vs. Madison

A ruling from the early 1800s. Merely because right wingers do not accept the concept of judicial review does not mean it is not the law of the land for over 200 years.

If a state declared Catholicism to be the state religion, its legislature passed that, and the governor signed, meaning it is the will of the people of that state, then the SCOTUS could overrule it as a violation of the First Amendment. By the logic of that idiot who wrote the piece linked, they could not do that. Then the Bill of Rights would have no effect.

The legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law, the judicial interprets the law. Conservatives don't like a SCOTUS ruling. Too damn bad. It's one of the branches of government and their job.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Although courts don't create law in the

same way that legislatures do, they can and do strike down or change existing laws all the time. When you change a law or nullify a law, you are basically making law. It doesn't quite sound like the same thing, but in practical terms, it is. Extreme RWers have a very limited and narrow interpretation of the Constitution, at least when it suits them.

[Vinca]

12. That's about the dumbest piece I've ever read.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince the nitwit of anything.

[unblock]

13. this takes the cake. he's disputing settled law from 1803.

the courts have been ruling laws unconstitutional since marbury v. madison, 1803.

i've read some pretty stupid articles about the kim davis situation, but this article is the worst legal analysis i've seen in a long time.

[X_Digger]

15. That's always the first one cited, but judicial review was firmly entrenched..

in the pre-constitutional state court systems.

Thom Hartmann went on a rant back when Citizens United was decided, claiming that the SCOTUS wasn't granted the power of judicial review, and therefore.. something-or-other-blah-blah-blah.

The wiki page has a lot of the history..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

[LostOne4Ever]

14. The law that she is breaking is violating a court order and the 14'th amendment (nt)

[PatrickforO]

16. That's easy. The article (which is from a tin-foil hat type Bircher website)

states that the Constitution says the only body which can make laws is Congress.

That's true. Congress, made up of the bicameral Senate and House of Representatives, makes the laws.

But, wait! What happens if one of the laws Congress makes is unconstitutional? Meaning, what if this law interferes with the Bill of Rights?

Oh oh. Well, that's why we have the Judicial system which is made up of appellate courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws on the books are constitutional or not.

And guess what? If they decide a law is unconstitutional, then it is no longer the law, even if Congress voted overwhelmingly for it.

The reason our founders put these checks and balances into effect is that they knew that Congress might get all frothed up by popular opinion and pass a law that is clearly horrible, but then someone would challenge that law and the case would rise to the Supreme Court, which would then overturn it because for some reason it goes against the Constitution.

An example: How would it be if the Republicans gerrymandered the states so badly and cheated at so many elections that they had a crushing whack-job majority. Then, that group would pass a law that called for, say, people who were guilty of 'heresy' against the evangelical megachurches could be taken into custody with no recourse to a fair trial, tortured (they are going to hell anyway, why wait?), and then burnt at stakes in a giant auto-de-fe.

Horrifying? You bet. But if Congress passes it and the President signs it, then it is the law. The Supreme Court, when it heard the , case, as it surely would, would be forced to rule against the new law on the basis that it conflicts with first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments - they would overturn the law.

[PatrickforO]

17. Oh, and let's not forget the 8th, 9th and 14th amendments...