labgrade
Member In Memoriam
labgrade('s) initial:
"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'
(& as I said, I barely skimmed the initial post & "but this jumped out at me."
" ... You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... "
&
"Which means that she readily disagrees with liberal rulings previously handed down."
"Do I have that right?
Star shell to brighten the night here."
(wherein there was a brief segue into "judicial interpretation.")
With:
tiberius' /Scott
"... it would be complete chaos based on individual whims. "
Lab's
"It is freakin' now, for jumpin' jimminy!"
tiberius',
"I don't think so. Because the judge should cite it in their decision and explain why they are going against precedence. By doing this, they are making a stand that can then be decided by either the preponderance of future cases or a higher court. Also, since most legislation is written so vaguely, we expect the courts to interpret it when needed. Without the use of past decisions, the legislation would be interpreted widely for different, but similar, cases."
& again, .... (& all I was addressing, at the time)
"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'
Well 'n good enough for me for a college class on legal matters, where nothing matters one whit why we lose, or retain our rights.
My "counter," if you will was regards to the whereins & whynots that the judiciary rules one way or the other the effect actual change in the future interpretation of our legal system.
Sorry you didn't catch the (real) drift of the initial segue - nor the basics of our federal, or state constitutions.
We do have as set/match/game/ law system which definatively states that we do have ceratin inalienable rights, not granted by any "state'[ entity," but by our Creator. & that these are, among others, life, liberty & the persuit of "happiness."
Any dispute? & really, that's the crux. Any dispute here?
Do we, or don't we, tiberius?
That was what I was addressing, & nothing more, or less by my segue into the "Quick skim, but this jumped out at me." digression.
Do you agree, or disagree to my initial premise?
Our polticial system has drifted so far from what it was decided to be, to what it is destined to become.
Sorry that you can't keep up. (so sad - not a slam at you, but at the legal system as a whole, & what it has become.)
"Judicial precedence" now-a-days "decides precidence."
Total BS! For a fast-track = there is not one thing that is allowed (based on the bill of rights) to ever go to the "next level judiciary." They all stop Right Here! based upon the bill of rights.
Take a look at your basic pyramid (for anything analytical).
You gots yer basic "bottom feeders" who "decide/eat" something, which gets kicked up to the next level (food-chain, or legal system) which gets to then play upon the "only thing offered," based on "office politics" & "what can you afford??
That "only thing offered" is the same thing that is kicked upwards to the next level judiciary.
Our juiciary system is so bastardized as to no longer be recognisable.
But I digress (but based upon pro & con experience/s).
I would only wish that every one of you could, at the least, experience our judicial system, at a personal level, so you could have some semblance of experience.
Without the personal experience, you are a "babe in the woods" (& clearly "an idiot" (without any negative conotations associated there-abouts)) = without any association, you really have no idea whatsoever about what goes on ....
As a final:
"judicial precidence" has no matter whatsoever, other than ...
... for what the courts deiced, based on what some other "judicial nominy decided previously." & that, usually based upon their predisposed party afilliation, which equals how they would "interpret" your rights.
Essentially, what "you'd" decide as a "judiciary decison" is that "your "RKBA" (as decided by an anti,) is that "you can't!"
Is THAT satisafactory?
It is, after all, judicial prcidence.
(ref NFA '34, ruling in the affirmative '39, Lautenberg Amendment, GCA '68, GCA '86)
Please do respond.
"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'
(& as I said, I barely skimmed the initial post & "but this jumped out at me."
" ... You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... "
&
"Which means that she readily disagrees with liberal rulings previously handed down."
"Do I have that right?
Star shell to brighten the night here."
(wherein there was a brief segue into "judicial interpretation.")
With:
tiberius' /Scott
"... it would be complete chaos based on individual whims. "
Lab's
"It is freakin' now, for jumpin' jimminy!"
tiberius',
"I don't think so. Because the judge should cite it in their decision and explain why they are going against precedence. By doing this, they are making a stand that can then be decided by either the preponderance of future cases or a higher court. Also, since most legislation is written so vaguely, we expect the courts to interpret it when needed. Without the use of past decisions, the legislation would be interpreted widely for different, but similar, cases."
& again, .... (& all I was addressing, at the time)
"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'
Well 'n good enough for me for a college class on legal matters, where nothing matters one whit why we lose, or retain our rights.
My "counter," if you will was regards to the whereins & whynots that the judiciary rules one way or the other the effect actual change in the future interpretation of our legal system.
Sorry you didn't catch the (real) drift of the initial segue - nor the basics of our federal, or state constitutions.
We do have as set/match/game/ law system which definatively states that we do have ceratin inalienable rights, not granted by any "state'[ entity," but by our Creator. & that these are, among others, life, liberty & the persuit of "happiness."
Any dispute? & really, that's the crux. Any dispute here?
Do we, or don't we, tiberius?
That was what I was addressing, & nothing more, or less by my segue into the "Quick skim, but this jumped out at me." digression.
Do you agree, or disagree to my initial premise?
Our polticial system has drifted so far from what it was decided to be, to what it is destined to become.
Sorry that you can't keep up. (so sad - not a slam at you, but at the legal system as a whole, & what it has become.)
"Judicial precedence" now-a-days "decides precidence."
Total BS! For a fast-track = there is not one thing that is allowed (based on the bill of rights) to ever go to the "next level judiciary." They all stop Right Here! based upon the bill of rights.
Take a look at your basic pyramid (for anything analytical).
You gots yer basic "bottom feeders" who "decide/eat" something, which gets kicked up to the next level (food-chain, or legal system) which gets to then play upon the "only thing offered," based on "office politics" & "what can you afford??
That "only thing offered" is the same thing that is kicked upwards to the next level judiciary.
Our juiciary system is so bastardized as to no longer be recognisable.
But I digress (but based upon pro & con experience/s).
I would only wish that every one of you could, at the least, experience our judicial system, at a personal level, so you could have some semblance of experience.
Without the personal experience, you are a "babe in the woods" (& clearly "an idiot" (without any negative conotations associated there-abouts)) = without any association, you really have no idea whatsoever about what goes on ....
As a final:
"judicial precidence" has no matter whatsoever, other than ...
... for what the courts deiced, based on what some other "judicial nominy decided previously." & that, usually based upon their predisposed party afilliation, which equals how they would "interpret" your rights.
Essentially, what "you'd" decide as a "judiciary decison" is that "your "RKBA" (as decided by an anti,) is that "you can't!"
Is THAT satisafactory?
It is, after all, judicial prcidence.
(ref NFA '34, ruling in the affirmative '39, Lautenberg Amendment, GCA '68, GCA '86)
Please do respond.
