The Patriot Act Extended

[ginnyfizz]

Marharth, please actually READ what I said;-

 

"Grannywils, that says what I would have said. The decision of the Supreme Court binds any lower courts, whether you like what they decided or not. That happens with any highly developed court system anywhere in the world, and so do eccentric decisions."

 

Especially the bit in bold italics "whether you like what they decided or not". I fail to see how that can be construed as instantly agreeing with anything the Supreme Court says or not possessing an mind of my own. A little arrogant and patronizing on your part I feel, not to mention the fact that you have missed other posts where I have mentioned getting whacked around the head for expressing dissent at Government policy before. The redheaded one a Yes Woman? That's hilarious, as any of my friends would tell you.

 

I was merely putting on my lawyer's wig again and confirming and agreeing with what Grannywils has said. Just to expand on the concept of how judicial precedent is similar the world over - in the UK for example, we have a very serious issue with judicial interpretation of the European Human Rights Act threatening to encroach on free speech and Parliamentary privilege - the infamous super injunctions protecting the identity of celebs caught with their pants down. The worry is that if ever one of these injunctions were to be upheld by our Supreme Court (aka The House Of Lords), it would become binding on all lower courts and removable only by an Act of Parliament. Celebrity rumpy pumpy is not in the same league as potential treason, terrorism and sedition, but the principle of gagging free speech and spraying shot far and wide (and catching the innocent)is the same. USA has The Patriot Act, Europe has the Human Rights Act. With a bit of luck, in Britain we will be repealing it.

[marharth]

Marharth, please actually READ what I said;-

 

"Grannywils, that says what I would have said. The decision of the Supreme Court binds any lower courts, whether you like what they decided or not. That happens with any highly developed court system anywhere in the world, and so do eccentric decisions."

 

Especially the bit in bold italics "whether you like what they decided or not". I fail to see how that can be construed as instantly agreeing with anything the Supreme Court says or not possessing an mind of my own. A little arrogant and patronizing on your part I feel, not to mention the fact that you have missed other posts where I have mentioned getting whacked around the head for expressing dissent at Government policy before. The redheaded one a Yes Woman? That's hilarious, as any of my friends would tell you.

 

I was merely putting on my lawyer's wig again and confirming and agreeing with what Grannywils has said. Just to expand on the concept of how judicial precedent is similar the world over - in the UK for example, we have a very serious issue with judicial interpretation of the European Human Rights Act threatening to encroach on free speech and Parliamentary privilege - the infamous super injunctions protecting the identity of celebs caught with their pants down. The worry is that if ever one of these injunctions were to be upheld by our Supreme Court (aka The House Of Lords), it would become binding on all lower courts and removable only by an Act of Parliament. Celebrity rumpy pumpy is not in the same league as potential treason, terrorism and sedition, but the principle of gagging free speech and spraying shot far and wide (and catching the innocent)is the same. USA has The Patriot Act, Europe has the Human Rights Act. With a bit of luck, in Britain we will be repealing it.

I wasn't aware anyone was claiming that the supreme court is not powerful or does not matter.

 

I was saying that just because the supreme court makes a ruling, does not mean that it is instantly true.

 

What they say is law of course, but that doesn't mean they were correct in making such a ruling.

 

From what I understand, you and granny were arguing that the supreme court rulings mean that something is true, which is incorrect.

[HeyYou]

Marharth, please actually READ what I said;-

 

"Grannywils, that says what I would have said. The decision of the Supreme Court binds any lower courts, whether you like what they decided or not. That happens with any highly developed court system anywhere in the world, and so do eccentric decisions."

 

Especially the bit in bold italics "whether you like what they decided or not". I fail to see how that can be construed as instantly agreeing with anything the Supreme Court says or not possessing an mind of my own. A little arrogant and patronizing on your part I feel, not to mention the fact that you have missed other posts where I have mentioned getting whacked around the head for expressing dissent at Government policy before. The redheaded one a Yes Woman? That's hilarious, as any of my friends would tell you.

 

I was merely putting on my lawyer's wig again and confirming and agreeing with what Grannywils has said. Just to expand on the concept of how judicial precedent is similar the world over - in the UK for example, we have a very serious issue with judicial interpretation of the European Human Rights Act threatening to encroach on free speech and Parliamentary privilege - the infamous super injunctions protecting the identity of celebs caught with their pants down. The worry is that if ever one of these injunctions were to be upheld by our Supreme Court (aka The House Of Lords), it would become binding on all lower courts and removable only by an Act of Parliament. Celebrity rumpy pumpy is not in the same league as potential treason, terrorism and sedition, but the principle of gagging free speech and spraying shot far and wide (and catching the innocent)is the same. USA has The Patriot Act, Europe has the Human Rights Act. With a bit of luck, in Britain we will be repealing it.

I wasn't aware anyone was claiming that the supreme court is not powerful or does not matter.

 

I was saying that just because the supreme court makes a ruling, does not mean that it is instantly true.

 

What they say is law of course, but that doesn't mean they were correct in making such a ruling.

 

From what I understand, you and granny were arguing that the supreme court rulings mean that something is true, which is incorrect.

 

Nope. not quite. They were arguing that when the supreme court renders a decision, that decision becomes precedent, binding lower courts to the same interpretation. Trouble with that is, one group may interpret things one way, while another group might see things entirely differently. That is why appointing judges to the supreme court is such a political issue. Put judges in there that subscribe to the same views as your party...... and you have something else to back your power. As the judges are appointed for life..... and the general public has zero input on who gets in there....... it has become little more than a political tool, to forward ones political goals. The decision that "corporations are people too" is a prime example of such.

[grannywils]

Ok, all. I think what I said was that what the Supreme Court says is LAW. They have the final say. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about it being right, wrong or indifferent. Marharth, you and I are likely to come to blows if you do not start reading what I say. I never once said anything about it being right or correct or anything else. But if we are citizens of this country than we it would behoove us to know how it works. Marharth, if you ever read anything that I say, you must know by now that I am a firm believer in calling my country on its errors or saying what I believe to be wrong about it. Please, do not put words in my mouth. Ok?

[marharth]

Ok, all. I think what I said was that what the Supreme Court says is LAW. They have the final say. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about it being right, wrong or indifferent. Marharth, you and I are likely to come to blows if you do not start reading what I say. I never once said anything about it being right or correct or anything else. But if we are citizens of this country than we it would behoove us to know how it works. Marharth, if you ever read anything that I say, you must know by now that I am a firm believer in calling my country on its errors or saying what I believe to be wrong about it. Please, do not put words in my mouth. Ok?

Saying that what the supreme court says is law is obvious and not relevant to the discussion. I assumed that you meant something else since it would not make sense to use that as a counter argument.

 

My entire argument from the start with this is that the rulings they make are not always correct. Using a court ruling as evidence without using evidence within the ruling means you are trusting the ruling based solely on opinions of judges and the court.

[ginnyfizz]

Once more I find myself echoing what Grannywils has said. HeyYou has also put the correct construction on what we were saying. I also ask you not to put words into my mouth and suggest that I said something that I did not. I am speaking of the FACT that the moment the Supreme Court hands down a judgment, it is the law. I am not giving an opinion on it or agreeing or disagreeing. Don't misrepresent me (hehe, that is also a tort...)

 

Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary, in particular, when a person will not listen.

[marharth]

Once more I find myself echoing what Grannywils has said. HeyYou has also put the correct construction on what we were saying. I also ask you not to put words into my mouth and suggest that I said something that I did not. I am speaking of the FACT that the moment the Supreme Court hands down a judgment, it is the law. I am not giving an opinion on it or agreeing or disagreeing. Don't misrepresent me (hehe, that is also a tort...)

 

Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary, in particular, when a person will not listen.

It seems strange that you would state the obvious as the first counter argument to my post then.

 

I do not understand why you would mention that what the supreme court says is law, what does that have to do with anything?

[grannywils]

Ok, all. I think what I said was that what the Supreme Court says is LAW. They have the final say. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about it being right, wrong or indifferent. Marharth, you and I are likely to come to blows if you do not start reading what I say. I never once said anything about it being right or correct or anything else. But if we are citizens of this country than we it would behoove us to know how it works. Marharth, if you ever read anything that I say, you must know by now that I am a firm believer in calling my country on its errors or saying what I believe to be wrong about it. Please, do not put words in my mouth. Ok?

Saying that what the supreme court says is law is obvious and not relevant to the discussion. I assumed that you meant something else since it would not make sense to use that as a counter argument.

 

My entire argument from the start with this is that the rulings they make are not always correct. Using a court ruling as evidence without using evidence within the ruling means you are trusting the ruling based solely on opinions of judges and the court.

 

Excuse me, Marharth, but you specifically asked the question about why everyone kept talking about the Supreme Court rulings. So I answered your specific question. If you didn't care for my response, that is your problem. But don't tell me my answer was not relevant to the discussion. Not sure just who you think you are speaking to here, but perhaps a little respect might be in order. I am not stupid, and certainly do not need you to explain to me what is relevant or in order. I would very politely like to suggest that you back off with that tone with me. Thanks.

[marharth]

Ok, all. I think what I said was that what the Supreme Court says is LAW. They have the final say. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about it being right, wrong or indifferent. Marharth, you and I are likely to come to blows if you do not start reading what I say. I never once said anything about it being right or correct or anything else. But if we are citizens of this country than we it would behoove us to know how it works. Marharth, if you ever read anything that I say, you must know by now that I am a firm believer in calling my country on its errors or saying what I believe to be wrong about it. Please, do not put words in my mouth. Ok?

Saying that what the supreme court says is law is obvious and not relevant to the discussion. I assumed that you meant something else since it would not make sense to use that as a counter argument.

 

My entire argument from the start with this is that the rulings they make are not always correct. Using a court ruling as evidence without using evidence within the ruling means you are trusting the ruling based solely on opinions of judges and the court.

 

Excuse me, Marharth, but you specifically asked the question about why everyone kept talking about the Supreme Court rulings. So I answered your specific question. If you didn't care for my response, that is your problem. But don't tell me my answer was not relevant to the discussion. Not sure just who you think you are speaking to here, but perhaps a little respect might be in order. I am not stupid, and certainly do not need you to explain to me what is relevant or in order. I would very politely like to suggest that you back off with that tone with me. Thanks.

I think we are misunderstanding each other then.

 

That post was not intended to be a question, I wrote it as such to express doubt or disbelieve.

 

I was trying to state that court rulings are not always correct. Seeing as this is the debate section, I do not think that using court rulings as absolute evidence to prove something in unconstitutional is correct. That should be up to the people discussing the topic here to determine.

[grannywils]

Am Done Here....