Comments on: That’s Going To Leave A Mark http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:00:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17732 Gaius Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:04:53 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17732 That is not at all what either Althouse or I am saying here. The president is arguing he has the legal basis for this program. The judge's job is to rule on that assertion using relevant case law as a guide. It is not the judge's job to assert her opinion in place of the president's opinion without using any legal basis. Otherwise it is her opinion - not the law - that controls. THAT is scary. That is not at all what either Althouse or I am saying here. The president is arguing he has the legal basis for this program. The judge’s job is to rule on that assertion using relevant case law as a guide. It is not the judge’s job to assert her opinion in place of the president’s opinion without using any legal basis. Otherwise it is her opinion – not the law – that controls. THAT is scary.

]]> By: Roland Hesz http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17731 Roland Hesz Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:53:15 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17731 I agree with you, that's why I said that it is subject to critics. And to be consistent with precedent - if you don't have precendents it can't be consistent with it, and as far as I know there is some ways to turn over a precedent, thought the exact procedure I don't know. "It is not acceptable to impose a judge’s opinion unless it is grounded in case law." Except if the judge can argue that there are fundamental differences, and the precedent can't be used as a baseline because the differences - according to news and court reports that's a really frequent thing. What you are telling then that the President's view can't be overruled, if he says red is a bad colour, then red is a bad colour and there is nothing to do about it? Would be quite scary.... I agree with you, that’s why I said that it is subject to critics.

And to be consistent with precedent – if you don’t have precendents it can’t be consistent with it, and as far as I know there is some ways to turn over a precedent, thought the exact procedure I don’t know.

“It is not acceptable to impose a judge’s opinion unless it is grounded in case law.”

Except if the judge can argue that there are fundamental differences, and the precedent can’t be used as a baseline because the differences – according to news and court reports that’s a really frequent thing.

What you are telling then that the President’s view can’t be overruled, if he says red is a bad colour, then red is a bad colour and there is nothing to do about it?

Would be quite scary….

]]> By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17709 Gaius Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:35:24 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17709 No, Roland. Judicial rulings in our system have to be consistent with precedent. It is not acceptable to impose a judge's opinion unless it is grounded in case law. That is what Althouse is explaining here. She teaches constitutional law, she knows what she is talking about. No, Roland. Judicial rulings in our system have to be consistent with precedent. It is not acceptable to impose a judge’s opinion unless it is grounded in case law.

That is what Althouse is explaining here. She teaches constitutional law, she knows what she is talking about.

]]> By: Roland Hesz http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17708 Roland Hesz Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:27:43 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17708 No.. His view wrong is not wrong Judicial view prevail over the president's. Of course, that same judicial view is subject to criticism, and can be overruled by a higher level court. But the president's view should not be above everything including law and constitution. And to avoid plain bad judicial rulings, you have a multi level judicial system. No.. His view wrong is not wrong
Judicial view prevail over the president’s.

Of course, that same judicial view is subject to criticism, and can be overruled by a higher level court.

But the president’s view should not be above everything including law and constitution.

And to avoid plain bad judicial rulings, you have a multi level judicial system.

]]> By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17656 Gaius Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:16:12 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17656 Perhaps you should read all of Althouse's piece. Which would clarify why your view is quite wrong. Perhaps you should read all of Althouse’s piece. Which would clarify why your view is quite wrong.

]]> By: Alphonse http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-17655 Alphonse Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:43:10 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/08/23/thats-going-to-leave-a-mark/#comment-17655 "Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?" Uh, just guessing here, but how about... that's the way our American Constituional system of checks and balances is designed to function? What do you and Ann Althouse have against our American Constituional system of checks and balances ? “Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?”
Uh, just guessing here, but how about… that’s the way our American Constituional system of checks and balances is designed to function? What do you and Ann Althouse have against our American Constituional system of checks and balances ?

]]>