I order you to deduct $1 from that donation I just gave you.

But it's the role of the Courts to determine what "good public policy" is.

Best evisceration of Bush v Gore I've heard.

Best evisceration of Bush v Gore I've heard.

There's a word for the assertion of more power than has been delegated to you -- dictatorship. Just because it's a dictatorship of 9 rather than 1 doesn't make its actions any less abominable. For decades, the Court has grabbed power for the federal government at the expense of the states, and power for itself at the expense of the other two branches.

The source of the Court's legitimacy is that it is passive, and that it neutrally applies pre-existing law to individual cases. When it does something other than that, the exercise of that power is illegitimate.

They can disguise their rationalizations in all sorts of vague euphemisms about 'modes of interpretation' and such, but at the end of the day, it's all about power.

This is the sort of thing that prompts people to overthrow their government. Our predecessors would never have put up with this.

Read my Blog for the information you are looking for.

Your Messenger and Protector,
Saint Michael

Very well said, Ace. You "get it" that it is not routine politics at stake in the courts, rather it is the health of representative government.

Why do people keep talking about Miers? It's not like there's a war on.

I've often suspected Ace might be an attorney in his day job. He's unsually articulate on Constitutional issues. This post is another good example.

Once again I can't understand what experience leads you to make these claims. Courts get cases, and have to decide them. The SC gets to pick from the real troublemaker cases. Problem so far?

You're basically okay with the Constitutional separation of powers, right?

Are you proposing to change that?

IN the past few years the executive branch has asserted rights to incredible powers.

In the past couple decades the legislative bodies have passed quite invasive laws in all kinds of new areas of life.

Can you give me examples where that's true of the judicial branch??? Examples where it affects your daily life like the others have?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (Bush-Gore, eminent domain), but it sure seems rare to me. Segregation, school funding, civil rights... but the cases ALWAYS arise from the constitutionality of LAWS on the books. So WTF?

I've often suspected Ace might be an attorney in his day job

As an attorney myself, I don't know if Ace is a lawyer now, but I can tell you for a fact that Ace has been to law school. He made it through the second year at least.

You can spot this by the stuff he says. For example, he talks about how the Uniform Commercial Code resolves the "battle of the forms." The "battle of the forms" is law school jargon that doesn't occur anywhere else, even among practicing lawyers, and you have to be at least in your second year to get to it. So, I'm guessing you're right -- Ace is a member of the NYC Bar Association.

Well, maybe he flunked the bar exam because he binged on Val-U-Rite Vodka the night before the test, but still, he's got the training.

BTW, I used to amuse myself by playing "spot the lawyer" on this site, but it got tedious because there are so many. Of the regular commenters here, I estimate that about 15% to 20% are lawyers.

Given my previous comment, I would like to remove all doubt on one issue. Brewfan is not a lawyer. He is just a plain old-fashioned cock-sucker.

What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

doberman

Brewfan is not a lawyer

Thats about the nicest thing anybody has said to me today. Thanks Michael!

While I might not come up with "battle of the forms" in everyday conversation (-- and, then again, I might), I knew what he was talking about when he made the reference....

....and I'm only a CPA. Maybe Ace is a beancounter.

Ok, smart guy, what does "what the fuck?" indicate as to my occupation?

;-)

"Once again I can't understand what experience leads you to make these claims. Courts get cases, and have to decide them. The SC gets to pick from the real troublemaker cases. Problem so far?"

The problem thus far is that the courts, especially SCOTUS, shouldn't accept cases to determine social policy. Their ONLY function is to determine if a law stays within the provisions of the Constitution, its Amendments & the written law of the land.

Issues such as abortion, when the death penalty could be applied, etc, aren't part of the domain that the Founding Fathers delegated to the courts.

The phrase "We, the People" means just that. We the people elect people to debate issues, to persuade people to their point of view. If they're able to do that, then they're able to craft legislation and, if it's good legislation, then the President signs it into law.

Issues that can't reach concensus go back for more debate until concensus is reached. THEY DON'T GO TO THE COURTS for them to create laws in lieu of the legislature's inaction.

After all, it's "We, the People" not "We, the nine in black robes".

Why do people keep talking about Miers? It's not like there's a war on.

As in, what the fuck? There's a war going on?

Sorry, I think I might be dragging the level of intelligent discussion in the thread down a few levels. Of course, Michael started it when he said "cocksucker," so don't look at me--it's the LAWYER'S fault!

By all appearances, Ace wants to retain some anonymity. So, why are you always trying to out him, Michael? It's not polite and appears hostile on your part.

Ok, smart guy, what does "what the fuck?" indicate as to my occupation?

Hooker.

By all appearances, Ace wants to retain some anonymity. So, why are you always trying to out him, Michael? It's not polite and appears hostile on your part.

There are 6.2 million lawyers in New York City. I think Ace's anonymity is safe.

Now, if you really wanted to out him, you could get on the website of the New York State Bar Association and do a search through the opinions of the Ethics Committee using "Val-U-Rite" as your search term. That might get you to his real name and home address. But, I'm assuming we will all respect Ace's privacy and refrain from doing this.

Ace: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MEIRS. We know what you think and why . Brevity is the soul of wit. Everyone remembers the Gettysburg Address and nobeody remembers all the other speeches given in the 1800's. Why? Because it was to the point and eloquent. More is not better. It is just more.

john:

Consider this advice from a friend: it is improper and impolite to tell someone to "shut up" on their own goddam blog. You are Ace's guest here. I'm not nutty about ace's fixation on the Miers thing either, and I have reqeusted that he devote his attentions elsewhere -- but if he chooses to post ad nauseam about Miers (and forfeit one dollar in donations from me for each Miers post), that is his prerogative as proprietor of this site.

There aren't many rules here -- Ace is a pretty easygoing operator, as can be seen by his tolerance of Cedarford for so long -- but one of them is: don't tell Ace what he can and cannot post. You may ask; you do not tell.

You're basically okay with the Constitutional separation of powers, right?

It's a foundation for objecting to the courts legislating. You do know the difference between interpreting and legislating, right?

IN the past few years the executive branch has asserted rights to incredible powers.

In the past couple decades the legislative bodies have passed quite invasive laws in all kinds of new areas of life.

Can you give me examples where that's true of the judicial branch??? Examples where it affects your daily life like the others have?

You are aware that your first two examples derive from New Deal SCOTUS enablement, right? Contrast, "Commerce Clause" and "Tenth Amendment." Some of the more outrageous cases have been cited in other threads.

the cases ALWAYS arise from the constitutionality of LAWS on the books. So WTF?

Whether the Court is actually bothering to apply the Constitution or, instead, judicially amending it without the consent of the people to further 5 or more justices' notions of what a more "enlightened" electorate would have adopted. (They do it with statutes, too, BTW.) This is painfully basic stuff, so try to pay attention.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess Tubby is not one of the site's lawyers.