On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Coincidentally the Progressives have been active in colleges and
politics in America the last 100 years.


And how about those Progressives that gave us the progressive income tax
and the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then they gave us Prohibition.

On 1/5/11 12:18 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:46:31 -0600, D Peter
wrote:

On 1/5/11 09:11 , wrote:

What you're really describing---is a tendency to assign falsity to
anything you don't agree with---.


As are you. What's your point.

I'm not the one claiming any interpretaton of law other than what you
agree with is correct

You are.


I see. So, a tendency to assign falsity to anything disagreed
with is only a flaw when YOU aren't doing it.

Interesting.

On 1/5/11 12:18 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:46:31 -0600, D Peter
wrote:

On 1/5/11 09:11 , wrote:

What you're really describing---is a tendency to assign falsity to
anything you don't agree with---.


As are you. What's your point.

I'm not the one claiming any interpretaton of law other than what you
agree with is correct

You are.

I'm not the one claiming any interpretation of law other than
what you agree with is incorrect.

You are.


What's your point?

On 1/5/11 12:20 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:49:50 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
wrote:

On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Then you haven't read Marbury v Madison


One of the singular most insidious power grabs in the history of
the Union. Acting on a significantly broad gloss on the terms of the
Constitution, it is the first example of the Justices legislating
from the bench.

Marbury v Madison created what Jefferson, himself, called 'the
despotism of an oligarchy.'

Marbury v Madison was an example of interpretation diverting from
both the text and the spirit of law to empower the court to act
beyond jurisdiction.

Thank you for the example.

Locations That Have Dead Birds And Fish
http://www.standeyo.com

There still are Birds flying around here.I put some more Bird food in my
Bird feeder.
cuhulin

On 01/06/2011 01:49 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Coincidentally the Progressives have been active in colleges and
politics in America the last 100 years.


And how about those Progressives that gave us the progressive income tax
and the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then they gave us Prohibition.

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Don't confuse the Progressive Movement with today's liberals; two
different animals sharing the same root word.

What happened in 1710 of such legal import that you keep referring to it?

When discussing "original intent" please remember the Founders were
middle class farmers who tended toward liberal democracy. The
Federalists were the liberals. The antifederalists were the
conservatives. None of the founders was rich by today's standards.

Therefore when an elite Supreme Court justice like Nino Scalia, who
routinely hangs out with powerful captains of industry, attempts to
divine "original intent" I want to puke.

On 01/06/2011 02:47 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 1/5/11 12:20 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:49:50 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
wrote:

On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Then you haven't read Marbury v Madison


One of the singular most insidious power grabs in the history of the
Union. Acting on a significantly broad gloss on the terms of the
Constitution, it is the first example of the Justices legislating from
the bench.

Marbury v Madison created what Jefferson, himself, called 'the despotism
of an oligarchy.'

He was talking about the Roberts court, the most corrupt and damaging in
history.

On 01/06/2011 04:27 AM, wrote:


But once again, you're countering with a rebuttal based on dislike of
the ruling---not in the efficacy of the ruling itself---accepted a
legal doctrine for nearly 300 yrs.

208?

On 1/5/11 14:27 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:47:20 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/5/11 12:20 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:49:50 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
wrote:

On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Then you haven't read Marbury v Madison


One of the singular most insidious power grabs in the history of
the Union.

That's what Judge Roy Moore believes(d)

How'd that work out for him?

But once again, you're countering with a rebuttal based on dislike of
the ruling---

Nothing different than anything you're doing. Interesting that
you don't like it.

On 1/5/11 14:27 , wrote:

But once again, you're countering with a rebuttal based on dislike of
the ruling---not in the efficacy of the ruling itself-


I'm sure it's not occurred to you that the two are related.