The Nancy Pelosi deathwatch

[Cail]

On the other hand, a SCOTUS decision (namely the one I'm talking about) is law.

Is that true? I didn't think so. There is a legislative branch for determining law. If SCOTUS does, what does legislative branch do?

Yes, that's true. All 3 branches of government can create law (in one way or another).

[Plissken]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

[Lord Mhoram]

*shrug* The Supreme Court has said that the law as Congress established it on detainees' Constitutional rights was unconstitutional. Now it's on the books and is established legal precedent.

edit: What I meant was that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is well, supreme. If they say something is or is not against the law, for better or for worse, as far as we are practically concerned, that is the case.

[Cail]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

That's not exactly true. Executive orders are de facto laws, and SCOTUS (through Roe vs. Wade) federalized the legalization of abortion.

[Cybrweez]

Yes, but was Roe v Wade overstepping their bounds? I remember reading how a Jefferson law was considered unconstitutional, but he ignored their decision. I'll may dig it up again, but the idea is the SC determines constitutionality, but doesn't have authority to enforce their decisions. It was part of checks and balances. Once they can enforce, you have unelected people w/alot of power.

[Cail]

Once SCOTUS makes a decision, it becomes enforceable law (as in the Heller decision last summer, asn as in Roe). Jefferson may have ignored a SCOTUS ruling, but if he did, he was the one overstepping his authority.

[rdhopeca]

I am not sure it is possible for the SCOTUS to be "overstepping its bounds". There is no provision I am aware of to overturn a SCOTUS decision without bringing another case before them and having them reverse themselves. There's not a veto override or anything.

[Cail]

In a perfect world, unelected judges with a lifetime tenure shouldn't be legislating from the bench, which Roe inarguably was. But you're right, the only way to override a SCOTUS decision would be to have them do it themselves.

[Rawedge Rim]

In a perfect world, unelected judges with a lifetime tenure shouldn't be legislating from the bench, which Roe inarguably was. But you're right, the only way to override a SCOTUS decision would be to have them do it themselves.

'course there is always "ammending the Constitution" through the legislative process. This is a 100% guarantee as an "override" to the SCOTUS, as in theory, they only have the power to rule "Constitutional or UN-Constitutional".

[Rawedge Rim]

and once again you mistake a legal brief for "LAW". Not the same thing.

On the other hand, a SCOTUS decision (namely the one I'm talking about) is law. So when somebody asks, "How are foreign unlawful combatants within our jurisdiction?" the answer is simple: it's the law.

And I'll grant you that, but what I don't want to see is a "legal brief" from a lawyer, turned by the "Big Lie" into fact. The so called "Secret Laws" were only a legal brief, not "Executive Orders", "Legislative Bills or Laws", or "SCOTUS" decisions. They had the same force of law as a "Friend of the Court Brief" does in a courtroom, which is Zero.

[wayfriend]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

That's not exactly true. Executive orders are de facto laws, and SCOTUS (through Roe vs. Wade) federalized the legalization of abortion.

Roe v. Wade declared that state and federal laws restricting abortion were unconstitutional. No new law was created by the supreme court AFAICT.

SCOTUS does have the power to strike down laws, and so, in that way, controls the law. But it's a negative control only.

Checks and Balances demands that no one authority has total control of legislation.

and once again you mistake a legal brief for "LAW". Not the same thing.

That wasn't me.

And it had nothing to do with thrust of my statement, which is that the Bush adminstration declaring that authorities have the power to torture US citizens as well as terrorists (through the means I explained above) fits in with their documented position of their power and authority, and is not a single, isolated incident. You can't say, that clearly wasn't the intention.

[Rawedge Rim]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

That's not exactly true. Executive orders are de facto laws, and SCOTUS (through Roe vs. Wade) federalized the legalization of abortion.

Roe v. Wade declared that state and federal laws restricting abortion were unconstitutional. No new law was created by the supreme court AFAICT.

SCOTUS does have the power to strike down laws, and so, in that way, controls the law. But it's a negative control only.

Checks and Balances demands that no one authority has total control of legislation.

and once again you mistake a legal brief for "LAW". Not the same thing.

That wasn't me.

And it had nothing to do with thrust of my statement, which is that the Bush adminstration declaring that authorities have the power to torture US citizens as well as terrorists (through the means I explained above) fits in with their documented position of their power and authority, and is not a single, isolated incident. You can't say, that clearly wasn't the intention.

If this seems like a dubious conclusion, one need only point out Bushes other secret laws. These are all of a kind.

Seems like it was you.

What the document was meant to do was to give the administration a legal "Fig leaf" if they decided that they needed to torture someone, and how it might be argued if taken to the court system.

[Cail]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

That's not exactly true. Executive orders are de facto laws, and SCOTUS (through Roe vs. Wade) federalized the legalization of abortion.

Roe v. Wade declared that state and federal laws restricting abortion were unconstitutional. No new law was created by the supreme court AFAICT.

I don't want us to hijack this thread since we have a perfectly good Abortion thread we can go back and forth on this, but...

Technically, you're correct. However, over the court's history, they manufactured a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist in the written Constitution. SCOTUS's Roe ruling federalized the regulation of abortion...For all practical intents, it created legislation from the bench, as there's no right to privacy in the Constitution for it to interpret.

[sindatur]

In a perfect world, unelected judges with a lifetime tenure shouldn't be legislating from the bench, which Roe inarguably was. But you're right, the only way to override a SCOTUS decision would be to have them do it themselves.

'course there is always "ammending the Constitution" through the legislative process. This is a 100% guarantee as an "override" to the SCOTUS, as in theory, they only have the power to rule "Constitutional or UN-Constitutional".

Unless they rule the Amendment to be Unconstitutional, based upon the previous framework

[wayfriend]

they manufactured a "right to privacy"

If by "manufactured" you mean "interpretted the constutution", and by "right to privacy", you mean "the states right to interfere with your person", then yes.

[Vraith]

However, over the court's history, they manufactured a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist in the written Constitution. SCOTUS's Roe ruling federalized the regulation of abortion...For all practical intents, it created legislation from the bench, as there's no right to privacy in the Constitution for it to interpret.

But the constitution isn't, nor is it even intended to be, definitive of rights. As far as I can tell the constitution doesn't forbid a right to privacy, therefore we have it...especially since there are a couple specific issues that the Const. DOES explicitly forbid interference with privacy.

And RR...the "Legal Fig Leaf" became something more than simple legal brief as soon as someone was tortured.

Back on topic, though...it seems the Pelosi/torture issue is dying as several predicted. I was at least hoping she'd lose the Speaker position.

[Cail]

they manufactured a "right to privacy"

If by "manufactured" you mean "interpretted the constutution", and by "right to privacy", you mean "the states right to interfere with your person", then yes.

In the Abortion thread, please quote the passage in the Constitution which lays out a right to privacy. I'll then repost the Court's tortuous route to creating it.

Vraith, the Constitution doesn't say that I don't have a right to carry a gun, and it specifically says that I can own a gun. That doesn't mean that I have the right to carry a gun.

Sin, yeah that's true. But in the case of the 3/5 thing, that was dealt with legislatively rather than through the Court.

[Vraith]

Vraith, the Constitution doesn't say that I don't have a right to carry a gun, and it specifically says that I can own a gun. That doesn't mean that I have the right to carry a gun.

Huh...I'd have expected you to be on the other side of this. I'd say it does mean exactly that...and say it, I think: Keep and bear, correct? or am I misremembering?... I'm all for rules about liscencing/registering guns, but most of the prohibitions on owning/carrying are unconstitutional...[obligatory nod to thread--so is torture, which is why Pelosi should be in trouble if she was briefed]

[Plissken]

Actually, only one branch can create law. The judiciary determines if the the laws created are Constitutional. It's a small distinction, but - no, wait, it's really not all that small.

That's not exactly true. Executive orders are de facto laws, and SCOTUS (through Roe vs. Wade) federalized the legalization of abortion.

The Supreme Court ruled that allowing States to legislate what happens inside the womb was in conflict with the Right to be secure in your person, papers and property. Whether you agree with that ruling is one thing. But it's not legislation.

[Cail]

Vraith, the Constitution doesn't say that I don't have a right to carry a gun, and it specifically says that I can own a gun. That doesn't mean that I have the right to carry a gun.

Huh...I'd have expected you to be on the other side of this. I'd say it does mean exactly that...and say it, I think: Keep and bear, correct? or am I misremembering?... I'm all for rules about liscencing/registering guns, but most of the prohibitions on owning/carrying are unconstitutional...[obligatory nod to thread--so is torture, which is why Pelosi should be in trouble if she was briefed]

No, I believe that the Constitution is very clear that I do have the right to carry a gun, yet the law says that I can't. Go figure.