"Fake law?" I Think So...

[Rightguide]

More and more we see activist judges putting their personal and political opinions before the written law:

Fake Law
How Trump-hatred warps the judiciary.
MAY 15, 2017 | By MARC O. DEGIROLAMI

Something ugly is happening to the First Amendment. It is being contorted to enable judges to protest Donald Trump's presidency. The perennial impulse of judges to manipulate the law to achieve morally and politically desirable ends has only been exacerbated by the felt necessity to "resist" Trump. The result: Legal tests concerning the freedoms of speech and religion that in some cases were already highly dubious are being further deformed and twisted.

Welcome to the rise of fake law. Just as fake news spreads ideologically motivated misinformation with a newsy veneer, fake law brings us judicial posturing, virtue signaling, and opinionating masquerading as jurisprudence. And just as fake news augurs the end of authoritative reporting, fake law portends the diminution of law's legitimacy and the warping of judges' self-understanding of their constitutional role.

From the article:

An even more appalling specimen of fake law has been generated by Trump's executive order restricting entry into the country by nationals of six foreign countries for 90 days and suspending refugee admission for 120 days. In one court order, a Hawaii federal district judge rejected the government's claim that the six nations posed special security threats (on this, the Trump and Obama administrations are aligned) and concluded that the order violated the establishment clause. Relying principally on obscure dicta from Justice David Souter's opinion for the Supreme Court in McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the court held that the "unique," "remarkable" "historical context" of the order, "full of religious animus, invective, and obvious pretext," tainted it with anti-Muslim bias and therefore evidenced a purpose to make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The court pointed to campaign statements by Trump that "Islam hates us" and by his "surrogate" (a media term appropriated by the judge) Rudy Giuliani's description of a campaign conversation with Trump about a "Muslim ban" to justify its holding. This executive order was narrower than its predecessor—but somehow that counted against the government. In reaffirming its decision in a preliminary injunction, the court erupted in sanctimonious disgust: "The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has."

And this unavoidable truth:

Trump, too, is responsible. His incompetence, his pugnacity, his reliably ill-advised policies, and his boorishness combine to cause his political adversaries to see all shades of red in whatever he does. Enraged legal academics have manufactured grotesque theories about the emoluments clause, the Electoral College, and the establishment clause just to bring him down.

The rest here for those interested:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/fake-law/article/2007934

 

[Lancecastor]

FAKE TITS at WEEKLY STANDARD

The Weekly Standard has 1 female writer, Kelly Jane Torrance.

Big tits, probably FAKE.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2553617581/3yjp9hw06hbkr7x4s3fs_400x400.jpeg

 

[Lancecastor]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/right04.png?w=620&h=69

 

[Saint Peter]

before
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/78/5a/43/785a43168fcc1df9171bb4e102093e4b.jpg

after

The Weekly Standard has 1 female writer, Kelly Jane Torrance.

Big tits, probably FAKE.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2553617581/3yjp9hw06hbkr7x4s3fs_400x400.jpeg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

More and more we see activist judges putting their personal and political opinions before the written law:

Welcome to the rise of fake law. Just as fake news spreads ideologically motivated misinformation with a newsy veneer, fake law brings us judicial posturing, virtue signaling, and opinionating masquerading as jurisprudence. And just as fake news augurs the end of authoritative reporting, fake law portends the diminution of law's legitimacy and the warping of judges' self-understanding of their constitutional role.

We've been over this ground before. The issue of "fake law masquerading as jurisprudence" is arguably less about judges blatantly ABUSING their legitimate function of judicial review "as to law and fact" than it is a categorical rejection on the part of conservative originalist judges and their like-minded citizen constituents of the judicial philosophy that such jurisprudence can legitimately flow from a view of the Constitution as a "living document."

It is an compromising philosophical dogma that the legal, substantive, practical interpretation of the law on appellate review MUST be driven and determined by the facts, circumstances and motivations of the original authors of the law at the time the law was enacted rather than the facts, circumstances and possible unintended consequences of the law's current operation.

If history has shown us anything it is that philosophical arguments long outlive the philosophers who gave them birth. Few have been indisputably resolved.

But the resolution to this fight does not depend on opinion. The methodology to correct judicial abuse from whichever political extreme it emerges is readily available. That solution is to simply write more articulate laws free of any possible ambiguity and/or, in many cases, amend the Constitution in such a way as to hamstring activist judges in those areas we wish them not to meddle.

If public opinion can be so inflamed to outlaw slavery, extend suffrage to women, prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and then permit such commerce yet again, then it most certainly has the power to curtail those members of the judiciary acting contrary to the public good.

Where there is a "will," there is indisputably NOTHING in our way. So stop whining about it and get on about the business of fixing it in the ORIGINAL manner that the founders established to affect the necessary correction.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)
But the resolution to this fight does not depend on opinion. The methodology to correct judicial abuse from whichever political extreme it emerges is readily available. That solution is to simply write more articulate laws free of any possible ambiguity and/or, in many cases, amend the Constitution in such a way as to hamstring activist judges in those areas we wish them not to meddle.

Congress is incapable of passing laws free of ambiguity. The loopholes are there for a reason, and they often snag the needed votes.

 

[Rightguide]

We've been over this ground before. The issue of "fake law masquerading as jurisprudence" is arguably less about judges blatantly ABUSING their legitimate function of judicial review "as to law and fact" than it is a categorical rejection on the part of conservative originalist judges and their like-minded citizen constituents of the judicial philosophy that such jurisprudence can legitimately flow from a view of the Constitution as a "living document."

It is an compromising philosophical dogma that the legal, substantive, practical interpretation of the law on appellate review MUST be driven and determined by the facts, circumstances and motivations of the original authors of the law at the time the law was enacted rather than the facts, circumstances and possible unintended consequences of the law's current operation.

If history has shown us anything it is that philosophical arguments long outlive the philosophers who gave them birth. Few have been indisputably resolved.

But the resolution to this fight does not depend on opinion. The methodology to correct judicial abuse from whichever political extreme it emerges is readily available. That solution is to simply write more articulate laws free of any possible ambiguity and/or, in many cases, amend the Constitution in such a way as to hamstring activist judges in those areas we wish them not to meddle.

If public opinion can be so inflamed to outlaw slavery, extend suffrage to women, prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and then permit such commerce yet again, then it most certainly has the power to curtail those members of the judiciary acting contrary to the public good.

Where there is a "will," there is indisputably NOTHING in our way. So stop whining about it and get on about the business of fixing it in the ORIGINAL manner that the founders established to affect the necessary correction.

It's almost politically impossible to "affect the necessary correction" in the manner established by the founders. So we all have to wait around for years on end in legal limbo wondering if the powers or rights withheld for political reasons by a lower court will, in fact, be supported or denied by the SCOTUS.

PS: It's pretty damn hard to write a statute more articulate than * USC 1182 (f).

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Congress is incapable of passing laws free of ambiguity. The loopholes are there for a reason, and they often snag the needed votes.

The unarguable FACT of your second statement does not establish the fallacious assertion of your first statement.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's almost politically impossible to "affect the necessary correction" in the manner established by the founders. So we all have to wait around for years on end in legal limbo wondering if the powers or rights withheld for political reasons by a lower court will, in fact, be supported or denied by the SCOTUS.

PS: It's pretty damn hard to write a statute more articulate than * USC 1182 (f).

The lame excuse I've grown so tired of hearing. The fact is, we're just not collectively pissed off enough yet. Where it is "impossible" to get the necessary votes to amend the Constitution, then the body politic has essentially rendered its judgment contrary to your desire and mine.

Tough shit for us -- or when the pendulum swings far enough, THEM. That's the way the founders, who you and I claim to respect and defer to, INTENDED!!!

How is it people keep missing this point?

 

[Rightguide]

The lame excuse I've grown so tired of hearing. The fact is, we're just not collectively pissed off enough yet. Where it is "impossible" to get the necessary votes to amend the Constitution, then the body politic has essentially rendered its judgment contrary to your desire and mine.

Tough shit for us -- or when the pendulum swings far enough, THEM. That's the way the founders, who you and I claim to respect and defer to, INTENDED!!!

How is it people keep missing this point?

Pissed off or not, I don't think we could get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on removing a contemptuous Attorney General, a perjurious IRS Commissioner, or an activist District Court Judge blatantly ignoring the law to apply his ideology to a matter before the court, especially if it furthered the Democrat agenda.

 

[Disgustipated]

The lame excuse I've grown so tired of hearing. The fact is, we're just not collectively pissed off enough yet. Where it is "impossible" to get the necessary votes to amend the Constitution, then the body politic has essentially rendered its judgment contrary to your desire and mine.

Tough shit for us -- or when the pendulum swings far enough, THEM. That's the way the founders, who you and I claim to respect and defer to, INTENDED!!!

How is it people keep missing this point?

Old white cross-dressers wearing wigs and owning slaves isn't what most of America needs/wants/can prosper from.

I know, I know... you're just trying to educate people on the law of the land and legal garbage and *most* of us understand that many steps need to be taken to put America on the right track.

 

[lovecraft68]

Of course this is totally different from Pence putting his religious beliefs into laws and healthcare acts, right?

Equally ballsy and stupid seeing asshole just appointed his very own 'honorable' judge to the supreme court.

As of right now Trump is in the drivers seat and right wing wimps like you still do nothing but whine about 'fake news'

 

[lovecraft68]

The lame excuse I've grown so tired of hearing. The fact is, we're just not collectively pissed off enough yet. Where it is "impossible" to get the necessary votes to amend the Constitution, then the body politic has essentially rendered its judgment contrary to your desire and mine.

Tough shit for us -- or when the pendulum swings far enough, THEM. That's the way the founders, who you and I claim to respect and defer to, INTENDED!!!

How is it people keep missing this point?

The point is also who would be the one amending the constitution? Trump? Every right we have as a people would be abolished and somehow the idiot OP and his brainless supremacist kind would be happy with that.

 

[Rightguide]

The point is also who would be the one amending the constitution? Trump? Every right we have as a people would be abolished and somehow the idiot OP and his brainless supremacist kind would be happy with that.

That's crazy. Trump doesn't amend the Constitution, we do through our state legislatures.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course this is totally different from Pence putting his religious beliefs into laws and healthcare acts, right?

Equally ballsy and stupid seeing asshole just appointed his very own 'honorable' judge to the supreme court.

As of right now Trump is in the drivers seat and right wing wimps like you still do nothing but whine about 'fake news'

Elections have consequences, get out and vote next time.

 

[HisArpy]

That's crazy. Trump doesn't amend the Constitution, we do through our state legislatures.

Two points:

1. We amend the Constitution via CONGRESS and that is then ratified by the States respectively.

2. Lovecraft keeps showing how totally impossible it is for some people to let that "I hate Trump" bone go. To the point that if they forgot to take out the garbage cans yesterday morning, it's STILL all Trump's fault that it didn't get picked up AND that the neighbor's dog pooped in their yard AND that their "winning" lotto numbers didn't come through...again.

 

[Rightguide]

Two points:

1. We amend the Constitution via CONGRESS and that is then ratified by the States respectively.

2. Lovecraft keeps showing how totally impossible it is for some people to let that "I hate Trump" bone go. To the point that if they forgot to take out the garbage cans yesterday morning, it's STILL all Trump's fault that it didn't get picked up AND that the neighbor's dog pooped in their yard AND that their "winning" lotto numbers didn't come through...again.

He's obsessed that's for sure.

To your first point, there two ways to amend the Constitution, check out Article V, the other is a convention of the states which instructs Congress that it "shall" call a convention of the states if two-thirds apply.

 

[jaF0]

Anything and everything 'Rump says, does or decrees should automatically be overridden because he's simply an incompetent idiot unfit to serve.

 

[Disgustipated]

To your first point, there two ways to amend the Constitution, check out Article V, the other is a convention of the states which instructs Congress that it "shall" call a convention of the states if two-thirds apply.

How many amendments have been made via that route?

Colonel! Here's your chance to educate!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How many amendments have been made via that route?

Colonel! Here's your chance to educate!

Gosh, I'd actually have to look that up.

 

[Lancecastor]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/78/5a/43/785a43168fcc1df9171bb4e102093e4b.jpg

She writes for a neo nazi rag... but has a BA from UBC.

Crazy... i bet she's a very dirty girl.

 

[water505]

The point is also who would be the one amending the constitution? Trump? Every right we have as a people would be abolished and somehow the idiot OP and his brainless supremacist kind would be happy with that.

What have they said or done that makes them supremacists?

 

[water505]

Of course this is totally different from Pence putting his religious beliefs into laws and healthcare acts, right?

Equally ballsy and stupid seeing asshole just appointed his very own 'honorable' judge to the supreme court.

As of right now Trump is in the drivers seat and right wing wimps like you still do nothing but whine about 'fake news'

That's a whole lot of hatred in one post. Get some fresh air and sunshine.

 

[water505]

Anything and everything 'Rump says, does or decrees should automatically be overridden because he's simply an incompetent idiot unfit to serve.

Yes! Let's automatically override fighting terrorists and standing up to North Korea before it's too late.

 

[Rightguide]

Gosh, I'd actually have to look that up.

This from Wiki:

"Even though the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments as well as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was proposed in part because of a Convention application by the New York and Virginia legislatures at the suggestion of a letter from the New York State Convention to ratify the Constitution. The Convention would have been limited to those changes discussed at the various State ratifying Conventions. At least four other amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention, bringing the total to 15 out of 27, a majority of the Amendments."

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

Supreme Court decisions affirming the process:

Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “[The people] have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the Congress . . . ; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified. . . .”

Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): "[Article V] makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. The proposed change can only become effective by the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in a like number of states. The method of ratification is left to the choice of Congress."[40]

Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921): In a ruling upholding Congress's authority to place a deadline on a particular Constitutional amendment's ratification, the Court reaffirmed that, "A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is that, on the application of two-thirds of the states, Congress shall call a convention for the purpose."[41]

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): "[A]rticle 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. . . . It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them."

Because of the political question doctrine and the Court's ruling in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433), it remains an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, if Congress were to refuse to call a convention.

Obviously, Congress wouldn't want to be left out of the process but that was the intent of James Mason when he proposed the language as a solution to a corrupt Congress not wanting its power diminished by the Amendment process and refusing to authorize amendments to do so.