#413 May 14, 2009
Precedent is anything BUT subjective:
precedent 1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis (star-ay dee-sigh-sis). 2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.
"From your posts, you must have already noticed that times are changing" ...
That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.
Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written.
NObama will likely appoint a socialist/marxist/liberal "living constitutionalist" that DOES NOT follow established precedent but is moved by the "changing winds of the populace" which is BS.
How are we supposed to conduct ourselves as a society based upon laws when the meaning of such laws change depending upon which judge it is before?
That is just plain ludicrous & idiotic.
The founders of our country realized that. That is exactly why they put the constitution in such definite language, giving Congress the role of limiting the judiciary - to act as a check & balance - to keep judges from "legislating from the bench". Article 1 section 8 & Article 3, et al.
ALSO:"I just re-read Jefferson's letter you linked in one of your earlier posts. The wording is so ambiguous that judges can read almost anything into it."
No, it is very definite if you understand the "legal language" and the CONTEXT, which you may not have taken the time to investigate, or so it seems. I am not trying to abrasive or mean, only proving a point of LAW.
#414 May 14, 2009
RE:Above - Once again, at the courthouse. Should verified what name was used before I posted.
#415 May 14, 2009
Precedent is very subjective. Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case. On that we seem to agree.
However, everything becomes subjective in court because the only thing that matters is what you can prove to a judge or jury. Almost any argument can find "precedent" in the law. If you can prove (in the mind of a judge) that it has merit, you win.
Again, it's all very subjective.
#416 May 14, 2009
"On that we seem to agree."
"Again, it's all very subjective." LOL LOL What a NUT!
"Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case." LOL LOL LOL
Precedent is DEFINITE; something that is subjective IS NOT DEFINITE.
Can't you read??
Try reading post #413 s l o w e r this time.
You appear to know almost nothing regarding the law except what you see on Law & Order. Too bad.
You are free to have & express an opinion on NObama; as am I. You have your "right to be wrong"!
#417 May 14, 2009
So the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade is definite. It cannot be subjective?
If I am wrong, then why is Obama president? Why are abortions-on-demand legal? Why is there no prayer in school? You're simply frightened and angry by what you see happening.
I'm not wrong. A lot of people believe as I do.
#418 May 14, 2009
Note: if something is subjective it takes place (by definition) within one's own mind; therefore an actual court decision that is precedent is not open to interpretation but is definite.
#419 May 14, 2009
You are as wrong as the sun is bright.
"That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.
Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written."
Roe is precedent until the law is changed the way it should be; not by a judge as Blackmun did in Roe - but by AMENDMENT.
Liberals/socialists/marxists & their friends at "not ACLUe" have taken to the courts to change laws that they disagree with because they can't get amendments passed (E.R.A. for one, gay marriage for another!) because the vast majority of people disagree with them!!
Utilizing the courts to change laws is NOT what the framers intended! Read the Constitution (Art. 1 Sect. 8 & Art. 3)! That is NOT SUBJECTIVE !!
In this country majority rules! Hence, gay marriage FAILS when it comes to a vote of the people!
Are you REALLY that naive to think that a judge is supposed to "rule as they please"?? LOL LOL
#420 May 14, 2009
Let me get this straight; according to what you say a stop sign is subjective?
#421 May 14, 2009
I'm obviously not making myself clear. The actual writing of a court's opinion sets a legal precedent. The meaning, or application, of the precedent is subjective to the court in which the precedent is being argued.
An attorney can attempt to use any precedent they wish to defend their argument. It is up to the court (Judge) to decide if the precedent is binding.
Again, it is all subjective. All aspects of the law are subjective and open to various interpretations. That is why there are winners and losers in court. Often, people disagree with the court's decision because it seems wrong or they believe it could have been argued differently.
Teasly wins again!
#422 May 14, 2009
Yes, Nathan. That is what I am saying. BTW...why did you feel the need to start the KKK?
Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that.
#423 May 15, 2009
BTW: Since the law is subjective, when does a stop sign NOT mean stop? Thought so, dullard.
Is this enough "precedent" for you?
Gov. Brad Henry has until midnight on Monday, May 18th to decide the fate of HB 1330, a bill which would allow the installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
The bill by Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, would not be an official government endorsement of religion, as the bill itself says, but, rather, would simply acknowledge the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of the laws and the legal systems of both the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma.
The legislation's purpose is not religious, but historical and educational. The bill says the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law in order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government.
If signed into law by Gov. Henry, the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument will use the same words used on the monument at issue in Von Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, the 2005 Texas case that the U.S. Supreme Court (and key Associate Justice Stephen Breyer) ruled as constitutional. The monument would be designed, constructed, and placed on the Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma. Rep. Ritze has indicated that his family will pay the costs of the monument.
#424 May 15, 2009
"Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that."
What an ignorant statement. You're trying to rationalize to make a point!
Conservatives argue issues w/FACTS; liberals argue issue w/emotion. Guess who wins in court?
(hint) The one who accepts precedent as rule, not "subjective".
#425 May 15, 2009
If you really are an attorney (which I doubt), you must seldom win a case. You have preconceived notions about what "should" be.
In court, all that matters is what can be proven, subjectively, in the mind of a jury or judge. That is reality. I know you don't LIKE reality very much, but it is what it is.
For example: A defendant might argue in court that he was somehow under duress and it was not possible or safe to obey a stop sign. Some courts would dismiss the argument. Some would not. Judges (courts) can be subjective, Mr. Attorney. LOL.
I bet I could argue a case better than you could. I feel sorry for any poor sap that actually retains an attorney like you. You fool.
#426 May 15, 2009
Don't worry, Nathan. He will sign it. Like I told you before, it would be political suicide if he doesn't.
As you already know, it's placement is set to be immediately challenged in court. It will likely be removed in a few years after a long legal battle.
Enjoy the moral victory. LoL.
#430 May 18, 2009
HA HA HA
I Like this post!
#431 May 19, 2009
HENRY SIGNED IT!
We welcome ALL challengers - so bring it on "not ACLUe"!!!!!
#432 May 19, 2009
I'm so happy for you and all your fellow Christians that you got your way it just get's me all choked up. I know your all so happy and it makes me smile. I understand it will paid for with private funding so that's OK by me. Now I feel safe and happy and I'm sure the citizens of OKC are feeling pretty secure too. Now I'm going to go consider that adultry part. Sounds tempting.
#433 May 19, 2009
Hope you enjoy yourself!
BTW: Adultery IS grounds for divorce; hence it is a violation of the law - the Ten & the State's.
#434 May 20, 2009
Of course he signed it. I would have done the same. A politician has to protect his image.
It is already set to be challenged in court. It will be removed in a few years after the Supreme Court (with a new, liberal justice) overturns their previous ruling and disallows it. I give it about 5 years.
#435 May 20, 2009
You posted:"(with a new, liberal justice)" LOL LOL
HINT: Justice Souter voted against it last time; his vote & therefore his replacement is moot to the situation.
Educate your blissfully ignorant self.
Add your comments below
|Balls of Fire||10 hr||Ryan Johnson||1|
|DHS Workers Speak Out On Agency (Jul '08)||20 hr||lynn||1,491|
|Directv referral code (Aug '12)||21 hr||Patti||70|
|Teenager Robs Tulsa QuikTrip At Knifepoint (Jun '10)||Wed||carly zane||67|
|ODOT Workers allowing INDIAN SIGNS to clutter R...||Wed||Steve Kouplin||2|
|Carl Michael Ruth, Jr.||Tue||Ron Johnson||70|
|Oklahoma Bureau Of Narcotics Holding Crime, Sub... (Jun '10)||Dec 16||unknown||15|
Find what you want!
Search Owasso Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC