The Patriot Act Extended

[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.

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?

 

Because you, Marharth, were pointed to Supreme Court rulings that had overruled a case you were quoting as representing the law, and then seemingly unable to concede that your argument had been shot down came out with the bizarre statement;-

 

"I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.".

 

So we all started pointing out that whatever we might think of the rulings of the Supreme Court, and in some cases we may not like them one little bit, we are stuck with them because they are the law. They have the last word.

 

And I don't like your tone any more than Granny does. I'm not stupid either, so just stop digging, eh?

[evilneko]

There's a Republican/Anti-Obama bumper sticker that says "keep the Change." As I live in Texas, I happen to see it quite a bit.

 

I'd like to ask, "where's my change?"

 

I think they kept it.

[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?

 

Because you, Marharth, were pointed to Supreme Court rulings that had overruled a case you were quoting as representing the law, and then seemingly unable to concede that your argument had been shot down came out with the bizarre statement;-

 

"I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.".

 

So we all started pointing out that whatever we might think of the rulings of the Supreme Court, and in some cases we may not like them one little bit, we are stuck with them because they are the law. They have the last word.

 

And I don't like your tone any more than Granny does. I'm not stupid either, so just stop digging, eh?

As I said to granny...

 

"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."

 

I will admit I was a bit rude to both of you, and I apologize for that.

 

As I agree with evilneko's statement.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

[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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

I am not saying we should ignore the rulings, I was saying that we should looking into the rulings and decide if the rulings were just or not, instead of just quoting the rulings.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

I am not saying we should ignore the rulings, I was saying that we should looking into the rulings and decide if the rulings were just or not, instead of just quoting the rulings.

 

What WE decide is irrelevant. What the COURT decides becomes law. Even if the majority does not believe that "Corporations are people too." The fact that the supreme court decide that yes indeed, they ARE, becomes the law of the land, unless/until, the same court decides otherwise. If you decide to ignore case law, because it does not fit with your idea of how things should be, do not expect to win any court cases.

[csgators]

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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

I am not saying we should ignore the rulings, I was saying that we should looking into the rulings and decide if the rulings were just or not, instead of just quoting the rulings.

 

That is what the Supreme Court is for, to review law and judge its constitutionality. Having judges judge the judges kinda ruins the point.

[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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

I am not saying we should ignore the rulings, I was saying that we should looking into the rulings and decide if the rulings were just or not, instead of just quoting the rulings.

 

That is what the Supreme Court is for, to review law and judge its constitutionality. Having judges judge the judges kinda ruins the point.

In a legal sense, yes it does ruin the point.

 

But should we just agree that the supreme court is correct with the rulings?

 

Is it a bad thing to look into the rulings and decide for myself if they were correct or incorrect?

 

My point is being missed, it is not that the supreme courts decisions are not law, its if people should question the decisions if they seem incorrect.

 

So I don't think anyone should refer to a ruling without evidence to support the correctness of the ruling.

[csgators]

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.

 

No, court rulings are not always correct. Even the supreme court rulings. However, unless/until the supreme court DOES decide that some ruling was incorrect, the ruling stands, and takes precedence over what has gone before. Using the argument that "the court is not always right, so, we can ignore its rulings" won't hold any water.

I am not saying we should ignore the rulings, I was saying that we should looking into the rulings and decide if the rulings were just or not, instead of just quoting the rulings.

 

That is what the Supreme Court is for, to review law and judge its constitutionality. Having judges judge the judges kinda ruins the point.

In a legal sense, yes it does ruin the point.

 

But should we just agree that the supreme court is correct with the rulings?

 

Is it a bad thing to look into the rulings and decide for myself if they were correct or incorrect?

 

My point is being missed, it is not that the supreme courts decisions are not law, its if people should question the decisions if they seem incorrect.

 

So I don't think anyone should refer to a ruling without evidence to support the correctness of the ruling.

 

Unless your ready for a revolution yes we do have to agree to follow their decisions, the rule of law is a key component of any society.

[ginnyfizz]

Nonono, Marharth we are NOT saying that the rulings are always correct, but they are the law, and WE cannot overturn them or indeed ignore them just because we don't like them. I'm a lawyer remember? If I DIDN't cite case law when making an argument, I'd get laughed out of court. The correctness (in your view) or otherwise of the ruling is immaterial, if it is a precedent, it is a precedent, and can be cited. The judges give an at length written judgment when they make a ruling, you have to read them to see where their argument is coming from. If you feel that a decision of the US Supreme Court is wrong, you are stuck with it unless either they themselves make a contradictory decision on another case which overturns their previous decision, or until an amendment to the Constitution is made. (There are more devious ways around it, but those are the legitimate ones.