Your logic is dizzying
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so the portion of a population that committed violent crimes was predisposed to psychopathological conditions?
you're going in the wrong direction, rat. keep paddling that boat up the dumb dumb river.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Judges can't legislate, 'tard
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_legislating_from_the_bench
[h=1]What is the meaning of legislating from the bench?[/h]
[h=1]What is the meaning of legislating from the bench?[/h]
[h=2]Government Questions[/h]
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > History, Politics & Society > Politics and Government > Government > International Government
Ads
Best Answer
Legislating from the bench is another way of describing when a court overreaches their Article III (...in the Constitution, Separation of Powers...) authority and creates law. The court's job is to interpret the Constitution and apply law (either from Congress, the Constitution, or common law) to the facts of the case at hand. If Congress passes a law that violates a Constitutional right, it is the Court's job to overturn the law as soon as it becomes a relevant case or controversy before them. In other words, the Court may not overturn an unconstitutional law until it is made an issue before them (somebody suing as a result of the law, etc.) If Congress passes a law that does not violate the Constitution, the Court has no right to overturn the law, even if they are against the law itself: their only job in that instance is to take the law and apply it to the present issue. Sometimes however, Courts will impose their own opinions and beliefs onto the law, rather than simply determining what was meant by the law. In these cases, the Court is said to be "legislating from the bench." Sometimes this is called acting as a super-legislature. Courts determined they had a right to "Judicial Review" in a case called Marbury v. Madison, and since then, the level of this review (referred to as Judicial Activism when the Court is being too aggressive, and Judicial Restraint when they are being too passive,) has been constantly criticized by whomever is being negatively impacted by a particular decision. The Constitution is the ultimate law. No laws are able to violate this document. After the Constitution is Federal Law, created by Congress. No State laws may violate Federal Laws, which in turn can't violate the Constitution. Some relevant cases on this issue may be: Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education (I and II), Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, McCulloch v. Maryland, Lochner v. New York, and Korematsu v. United States. Also: searches on "Judicial Activisim," "Judicial Restraint," and "Separation of Powers," may all yield helpful information!
[h=2][/h]
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"Aspergerites"? Did you just make that up?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Violence in Normals is also not unheard-of. I would expect increased violence in the overall autism spectrum. One of the distinctive features of autism incl. Asperger is a difficulty with communication, esp. nonverbally for the Aspergerites. It's worse for the more profoundly autistic, who often have trouble with language as well. Since it cannot be denied that violence is a form of communication ... it stands to reason that a frustrated autist would contemplate it. Of course, it has become an axiom of modern society that violence is inherently bad. Earlier societies, while they rarely embraced violence, were less absolute about it. Even so, the task becomes teaching the communication-impaired to seek nonviolent forms of expression.
With most Aspergerites, this social task is not difficult. We tend to be a verbal, hyperrational bunch, so if you can convince one of us of the inappropriateness of a specific violent response, we'll avoid it. This holds especially where a satisfying result can be negotiated, fixing the underlying conflict or difficulty that led to considering the last resort of violence in the first place. Jmo. cn
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I am unaware of Reagan having any influence in mental health treatment. However, the ACLU filed a series of lawsuits back in the 1970's and 1980's that shut down nearly all the state mental institutions. Tens of thousands of patients were "freed" and turned loose on society. Many wandered off to die of exposure, starvation, or misadventure. Blaming Reagan sounds like left wing propaganda.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No way to tell. His victims were all shot at very close range.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Yes. What of it? Can you propose a more compact and descriptive alternative? cn
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You really are a poor reader. Oar your a liar. His post didn't imply that at all.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I guess this was all over you're head, 'tardhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_legislating_from_the_bench [h=1]What is the meaning of legislating from the bench?[/h] [h=1]What is the meaning of legislating from the bench?[/h] [h=2]Government Questions[/h] Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > History, Politics & Society > Politics and Government > Government > International Government
Ads
View Slide Show Best Answer Legislating from the bench is another way of describing when a court overreaches their Article III (...in the Constitution, Separation of Powers...) authority and creates law. The court's job is to interpret the Constitution and apply law (either from Congress, the Constitution, or common law) to the facts of the case at hand. If Congress passes a law that violates a Constitutional right, it is the Court's job to overturn the law as soon as it becomes a relevant case or controversy before them. In other words, the Court may not overturn an unconstitutional law until it is made an issue before them (somebody suing as a result of the law, etc.) If Congress passes a law that does not violate the Constitution, the Court has no right to overturn the law, even if they are against the law itself: their only job in that instance is to take the law and apply it to the present issue. Sometimes however, Courts will impose their own opinions and beliefs onto the law, rather than simply determining what was meant by the law. In these cases, the Court is said to be "legislating from the bench." Sometimes this is called acting as a super-legislature. Courts determined they had a right to "Judicial Review" in a case called Marbury v. Madison, and since then, the level of this review (referred to as Judicial Activism when the Court is being too aggressive, and Judicial Restraint when they are being too passive,) has been constantly criticized by whomever is being negatively impacted by a particular decision. The Constitution is the ultimate law. No laws are able to violate this document. After the Constitution is Federal Law, created by Congress. No State laws may violate Federal Laws, which in turn can't violate the Constitution. Some relevant cases on this issue may be: Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education (I and II), Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, McCulloch v. Maryland, Lochner v. New York, and Korematsu v. United States. Also: searches on "Judicial Activisim," "Judicial Restraint," and "Separation of Powers," may all yield helpful information! [h=2][/h]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you read from right to left or something, stormfront red?
i guess you've never heard of the common phrase "legislating from the bench", stormfront red.
this close to busting out the dead wife jokes.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You aren't nearly a smart as you think you are, 'tard.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
add that to the list, along with equal rights, the clitoris, and pretty much every detail of the zimmerman case.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
were you addressing that to yourself?
GrowinTheDank
Active Member
I'm afraid you don't have the mental capacity required to adequately debate this topic :/
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So. you take that literally? ...lol......,'tard
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am finding this difficult to research because all i can find are damned blogs. On the right, you have such as this: it wasn't his fault at all!
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com/2012/09/common-knowledge-reagan-and-homeless.html
On the left, we can hear just how awful it was!
http://www.miwatch.org/2011/02/_ronald_reagan_and_mental.html
What we do know is that the policies of the time (the correlation being certain even as we argue the causation) led to a spike in the homeless population, many of them mentally ill. The state support apparatus expressly mentioned by Kennedy didn't materialize as budget became the supreme consideration, or excuse, depending on your political sentiments.
The discussion now turns to the question: would a less bleak prospect of treatment for someone like Adam Lanza have derailed the train of ideas and events that ended with Sandy Hook? It's not easy to posit a No. It also suggests that treating our mentally ill homeless and poor might pay a dividend that cannot be counted by the green eyeshade set. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, but you sure did!
LOL!
'tard.
now the dead wife jokes are coming out, red. you were warned.