The Patriot Act Extended

[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.

 

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.

I am not saying we should not follow the decisions, I am saying during a debate you should back up the rulings with evidence to why the rulings are correct.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

Not to mention that you can find dissenters for EVERY decision the Supreme Court makes........ So, would that mean that none of them have any validity? :D

[marharth]

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.

 

Not to mention that you can find dissenters for EVERY decision the Supreme Court makes........ So, would that mean that none of them have any validity? :D

I am not saying that supreme court rulings are invalid, read the post above yours.

[ginnyfizz]

I am not saying we should not follow the decisions, I am saying during a debate you should back up the rulings with evidence to why the rulings are correct.

 

No we shouldn't, that's just...unbelievable. Citing a ruling of the Supreme Court is making a statement of fact about where the law stands at the moment, we do not have to say why or whether it is correct.

[marharth]

I am not saying we should not follow the decisions, I am saying during a debate you should back up the rulings with evidence to why the rulings are correct.

 

No we shouldn't, that's just...unbelievable. Citing a ruling of the Supreme Court is making a statement of fact about where the law stands at the moment, we do not have to say why or whether it is correct.

So why is it that it angered you when I said you would blindly listen to the rulings...?

 

If you cite the rulings without evidence that the rulings are correct, is that not blindly following the rulings?

[ginnyfizz]

No, it's being presented with a fait accompli with nothing to be done about it. A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME OF TELLING. The Law is sometimes an ass, but we are stuck with it. Marharth, stop trying to make me look stupid, just because you think you can get away with it and not be pulled up for it. I have an honours degree in Law, it's my pet subject so to speak, and I know what I am talking about, more so than you. Try actually reading a few Supreme Court judgments, and if you ever do get to the end of one you would appreciate that it would not be the time or the place, AND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE, to debate the minutiae of the rulings here. The moderators would be swooping to tell us to get back on topic faster than you can blink, and rightly so.

[marharth]

No, it's being presented with a fait accompli with nothing to be done about it. A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME OF TELLING. The Law is sometimes an ass, but we are stuck with it. Marharth, stop trying to make me look stupid, just because you think you can get away with it and not be pulled up for it. I have an honours degree in Law, it's my pet subject so to speak, and I know what I am talking about, more so than you. Try actually reading a few Supreme Court judgments, and if you ever do get to the end of one you would appreciate that it would not be the time or the place, AND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE, to debate the minutiae of the rulings here. The moderators would be swooping to tell us to get back on topic faster than you can blink, and rightly so.

You keep saying that its law, so what? What does that have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the statements?

 

I am not trying to make you look stupid, I am trying to figure out why you keep referring to law when I am talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the rulings.

 

My entire argument is that you should find out why a ruling was made, and if it was correct to be made. I am saying you should look into it and not just listen to the judges.

 

And you keep saying that it is law and it is fact, I do not see what that has to do with it.

 

This entire topic is about the legality about the patriot act, I don't see how this would be off topic.

 

So to make it easier on me, why does the fact it is a law matter in relation to being open minded about the rulings and looking into them?

[HeyYou]

No, it's being presented with a fait accompli with nothing to be done about it. A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME OF TELLING. The Law is sometimes an ass, but we are stuck with it. Marharth, stop trying to make me look stupid, just because you think you can get away with it and not be pulled up for it. I have an honours degree in Law, it's my pet subject so to speak, and I know what I am talking about, more so than you. Try actually reading a few Supreme Court judgments, and if you ever do get to the end of one you would appreciate that it would not be the time or the place, AND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE, to debate the minutiae of the rulings here. The moderators would be swooping to tell us to get back on topic faster than you can blink, and rightly so.

You keep saying that its law, so what? What does that have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the statements?

 

I am not trying to make you look stupid, I am trying to figure out why you keep referring to law when I am talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the rulings.

 

My entire argument is that you should find out why a ruling was made, and if it was correct to be made. I am saying you should look into it and not just listen to the judges.

 

And you keep saying that it is law and it is fact, I do not see what that has to do with it.

 

This entire topic is about the legality about the patriot act, I don't see how this would be off topic.

 

So to make it easier on me, why does the fact it is a law matter in relation to being open minded about the rulings and looking into them?

 

 

What would be the point? If you go back and review that last dozen or so supreme court rulings, I am sure you can find a couple that you disagree with. (corporations are people too, for instance....) So, you disagree. You don't think that decision was 'correct'. Now what? Are you going to campaign against the supreme court decision? Spend HUGE piles of cash trying to fight something that many other folks, with even bigger piles of cash, want to keep in place? You, as a private citizen, have absolutely zero influence on the supreme court, and that isn't likely to change. Ever. (unless you become a supreme court justice yourself.....)

 

And who is to say whether a decision is right or wrong? I vehemently disagree with the afore-mentioned decision, but, ya know what? There isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch. I can protest. I can stand up on my soapbox, and preach about the evils of this particular decision, and would probably find a fair few folks that would agree with me, but, all of that would amount to all of nothing as far as the supreme court is concerned. I would just be another crackpot protester that was 'unamerican' or some such dog dirt.

 

It's akin to questioning the laws of physics. Sure, you can look into it, and see if you agree or not, but, you aren't going to change them. No matter how much you may want to. So, citing a supreme court decision, does not require any additional backing, as it is the highest court in the land, and there is no appeal. Once they hand down their decision. That's it. It's done. Second guessing them serves absolutely no purpose. (aside from an exercise in frustration)

Edited June 4, 2011 by HeyYou

[ginnyfizz]

My entire argument is that you should find out why a ruling was made, and if it was correct to be made. I am saying you should look into it and not just listen to the judges.

 

Why don't you try it? Read the judgments, rather than Wikipedia. I read the judgments in toto and am quite capable of understanding the reasoning of the judges, thank you very much, but just as HeyYou says, whether or not I agree with them is immaterial, we are stuck with them.

[marharth]

My entire argument is that you should find out why a ruling was made, and if it was correct to be made. I am saying you should look into it and not just listen to the judges.

 

Why don't you try it? Read the judgments, rather than Wikipedia. I read the judgments in toto and am quite capable of understanding the reasoning of the judges, thank you very much, but just as HeyYou says, whether or not I agree with them is immaterial, we are stuck with them.

Thats like saying "Whether I agree with the drug laws or not, we are stuck with them so it does not matter."

 

I am saying you should read the rulings and decide for yourself if they are correct or not, if its law it doesn't matter in that context.

 

A lot of drugs are illegal, so that means we should agree with the law at all times?

 

So to be sure I am following you right, you are saying that because its law, it does not matter what anyone thinks about it?

 

Why does this topic even exist then? The patriot act was passed by congress and is ruled as constitutional, so clearly this topic needs to be deleted right?