Australian Politics Forum - American Supreme Court is better ....

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38535
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #90 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:38pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

What the hell does that mean?

What it says......for example, say a Board Member was found to be bankrupt and ineligible to be a Director under Corporate Law.....Board decisions made by the Board when he was there, are not invalidated.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #91 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:39pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:37pm:

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:34pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:15am:

he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie

- who happens to be a citizen of NZ.

By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ????

We shall see how good our High Court is.
I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement.

Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people

does it
make the laws they voted for invalid?

No.

[font=Georgia][size=11]I agree, but I would think, based on the reasons the law exists in the first place, that all laws passed by a tainted government should, at least, be up for review.

Right. Policies like Obamacare should be invalid due to a government led by a tinted foreign monkey in a tree.

Hussein Obama's laws are up for review alright. Trump's going through them, one by one. He's making America great again one step at a time. First step, get rid of the gorilla. Second step, abandon his key policies.

Third step, incarcerate the Muslim scumbag.

Obamacare should've been unconstitutional because Congress has no power to make laws with respect to healthcare in the United States, but I see your point.

In fact, there is a judicial doctrine in America called [i]substantive due process in which the Court may overturn legislation if they believe it infringes on the rights of an individual.

and yet no one challenged it on that point despite the rabid right demanding that poor people should be denied basic healthcare. Ive calling you on this one. You are wrong as events have proven.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

lovely lips Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 116 Gender:	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #92 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:40pm This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #93 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:42pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution.

After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it.

The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible).

that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court?

This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges.

My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner:

1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth;

2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree).

3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope."

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #94 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:42pm

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:40pm:

This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done.

Good luck when we take over, scum.

you are on the streets scurrying away from other protestors. You are getting sacked from your jobs and being publicly shamed on the internet.

You will always be there, but vermin are always difficult to eradicate. Your superiors (pretty much anyone) will walk over your worthless corpses as you die having acheived nothing at all in your pitiful existence.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #95 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:43pm

Quote:

and yet no one challenged it on that point despite the rabid right demanding that poor people should be denied basic healthcare. Ive calling you on this one. You are wrong as events have proven.

No, it was challenged on that point: Conservatives argued that it was a power [correction: NOT a power] conferred to the Congress as per section 8 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court allowed the law based on Congress' power to tax and spend; BUT the law could not compel States to except the programme.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11399
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #96 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:44pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation???

I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted.

If not....Then why the law?

Is the law merely established to punish, or was it hopefully designed to protect Australia from legislative harm.

Back to top

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #97 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:45pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution.

After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it.

The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible).

that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court?

This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges.

My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner:

1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth;

2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree).

3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope."

Thats not bad, but I question 3). Is there a reason to change the constitution to do that? I am very much a fan of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. The same argument against a bill of rights as that will codify them and accidentally exclude others that we already have. I dont see the american Bill of Rights as some kind of shining example. this is after all the nation of slavery and a civil rights movement.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #98 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:46pm

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:40pm:

This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done.

Good luck when we take over, scum.

Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #99 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:46pm

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation???

I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted.

If not....Then why the law?

Reviewed by whom? Parliament? THEY DO THAT NOW.

by the way COngress didnt give Trump recess appointments. AS I PREDICTED!

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #100 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:45pm: