California, meet the UK

WestlinnDuck said:
The death penalty is specifically authorized in the Constitution and yet dems will argue it is banned because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution but then with imagining "emanations" and "penumbras" voila it becomes a super Constitutional right. Then we can do AA which is not only unconstitutional but outlawed by the Civil Right Act of 1964 and yet our flawed dems want to DIE over DEI.
Click to expand...
And another ponderous list of grievances. I’ll never get to them all, but a few responses:

1. Many if not most of us who oppose capital punishment do so for reasons which have nothing to do with claiming it is unconstitutional.

2. The Ninth Amendment exists for a good reason and there are fundamental rights you want respected which are not explicitly listed in the constitution.

3. I agree that AA can’t be squared with the constitution. If that were the sole difference between the two major parties, I’d still be voting Republican more often than I vote Democrat.
 
HHusky said:
The question makes no sense. The only way for the constitutionality of a statute to come before a court is for the statute to be passed in the first place.

And if the courts get it wrong? Well that’s happened before. I’m sorry I can’t offer you a system of government in which the human beings involved get everything right. But it’s the system we muddle along with. I’m not aware of any infallible alternative.
Click to expand...
Well, since your premise was challenging courts with new legislation, rather than the opposite that you now claim, you're premise was flawed from the get go and you just didn't follow what came next. One of the consequences of you frequently making up your mind and then backfilling with some tortured glib rationale
 
Sources said:
Well, since your premise was challenging courts with new legislation, rather than the opposite that you now claim, you're premise was flawed from the get go and you just didn't follow what came next. One of the consequences of you frequently making up your mind and then backfilling with some tortured glib rationale
Click to expand...
Both the Washington “millionaire tax” and Mississippi’s restrictions on abortion were passed with conscious and explicit awareness of the caselaw they would necessarily challenge in order to be deemed constitutional. Given that OBVIOUS fact, I have no idea what you believe I’ve reversed myself on.

Knuckle dragging red state legislators had been creating statutes they explicitly said they hoped would be the context for reversing Roe for decades. The new Washington income tax was passed with the clear knowledge a challenge to its constitutionality would probably require reversal of the existing precedent of the Washington Supreme Court.
 
The Dazzler does not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed". He's just a commie shill and a shitty lawyer! Machineguns will be legal soon. Stock up.
 
HHusky said:
Mall Cop excitedly offers the only constitutional sentence fragment with which he is familiar.

#BrainTrust
Click to expand...
Shitty Lawyer doesn't know what it means. Spouts bullshit all day. Go ahead post the definition Mrs. Legal Scholar. I'll wait.
 
HHusky said:
Both the Washington “millionaire tax” and Mississippi’s restrictions on abortion were passed with conscious and explicit awareness of the caselaw they would necessarily challenge in order to be deemed constitutional. Given that OBVIOUS fact, I have no idea what you believe I’ve reversed myself on.

Knuckle dragging red state legislators had been creating statutes they explicitly said they hoped would be the context for reversing Roe for decades. The new Washington income tax was passed with the clear knowledge a challenge to its constitutionality would probably require reversal of the existing precedent of the Washington Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding the "two wrongs make a right" defense is idiotic, in one case the idea was to challenge legislation from the bench* and in the other case it was a challenge to settled constitutional precedent. hth

*Roe was shit jurisprudence, even RGB said as much. Your beloved Dems campaigned on it for 50 years but did nothing to codify it, so blame them
 
Sources said:
Notwithstanding the "two wrongs make a right" defense is idiotic, in one case the idea was to challenge legislation from the bench* and in the other case it was a challenge to settled constitutional precedent. hth

*Roe was shit jurisprudence, even RGB said as much. Your beloved Dems campaigned on it for 50 years but did nothing to codify it, so blame them
Click to expand...
Dems had that window in early 2009 before Ted Kennedy died where they had 60 in the Senate, controlled the House, and had a new President in Obama and didn’t codify Roe then. There is nothing the GOP could have done to stop it yet the Dems didn’t even try.

My belief is that they didn’t do it because it’s a wedge issue for them to this day. Look at dummy @HHusky still falling it.
 
Sources said:
Notwithstanding the "two wrongs make a right" defense is idiotic, in one case the idea was to challenge legislation from the bench* and in the other case it was a challenge to settled constitutional precedent. hth

*Roe was shit jurisprudence, even RGB said as much. Your beloved Dems campaigned on it for 50 years but did nothing to codify it, so blame them
Click to expand...
Washington’s constitution doesn’t explicitly bar an income tax. A divided Washington Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as doing so. A divided US Supreme Court decided Roe. The comparison is entirely apt.

We have no disagreement about the quality of the Roe opinion, but that’s hardly the point.
 
September 8, 1933, the Washington State Supreme Court declares the state’s one-year-old, citizen-approved income tax unconstitutional.
 
As long as you don't think your money is "property" then you can have a progressive tax. The quality of the Roe opinion is the point. If you can't read and understand English you are an incompetent judge and you get shit like Plessy v. Ferguson and "separate but equal".
 
HHusky said:
Washington’s constitution doesn’t explicitly bar an income tax. A divided Washington Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as doing so. A divided US Supreme Court decided Roe. The comparison is entirely apt.

We have no disagreement about the quality of the Roe opinion, but that’s hardly the point.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the current court refuses to even address the issue as to whether income tax is permitted (though they'll likely have to now because Dems can't help themselves). They just keep pretending new taxes are other types of tax. Great work around to drive out businesses and high earners.

Anecdotal, but I personally know over 40 law partners that have moved out of Seattle because of the B&O tax, and many are considering moving out of state as the incentive to live in the area is getting eviscerated because of shit policy. The courts are enabling this idiocy, but fortunately can blame whitey, corporate greed, and other leftist boogeymen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top