| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Remember Jose Padilla?; Perhaps higher than we thought. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2006, 03:59 PM (522 Views) | |
| JBryan | May 28 2006, 03:36 PM Post #26 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Yes, and he ignored that ruling. Such are the tussles between the co-equal branches. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 28 2006, 10:02 PM Post #27 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OED: Definitive: 1. a. Having the function of finally deciding or settling; decisive, determinative, conclusive, final: The primary definition, Quirt. An appellate court decsion is always subject being overruled. It doesn't matter what the percentages are. You quibble over the definition with your bizarre construction: "Even Supreme Court decisions can be overruled, by a subsequent Supreme Court." The Supreme Court is one entity. There is no "subsequent Supreme Court", only the composition of the Justices change. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 29 2006, 02:59 AM Post #28 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I suppose that, when we refer to the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court, we're referring to the same thing then. <_< And there's only one Congress. Why, then, are they numbered? The 87th Congress, the 88th Congress, the 89th Congress, if there's only one? You'll argue over anything, even whether the sky is blue. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 29 2006, 09:29 AM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Quirt: You are the one who wants to argue over whether the it is the Supreme Court or an Appellate Court who can give a "definitive" interpretation of the US Constitution. You think that an Appellate Court can give a definitive interpretation of the Constitution. That is not my understanding of how things work. The Supreme Court is the only court created by the Constitution. All other inferior courts are created by Congress. Since these inferior courts have not been created by the Constitutional mandate, they cannot hold definitive interpretation over the Constitution. You can quibble all you want over the conventional naming of the Courts or the Congress. They do not operate under different rules and are not separate categories in the way, say, an Appellate Court is substantially different from the Supreme Court. It seems rather than recanting your indefensible position that an Appellate Court can give a definitive interpretation to Constitution, you find it easier to personalize the thread and accuse me of arguing over whether the sky is blue. Sometimes, Quirt, it might be better to just acknowledge that you are wrong if you are unable to continue the conversation in a more polite manner by giving real counter arguments. Please just give me the Constitutional argument for defending your view that the Appellate Court can give a definitive interpretation of the Constitution, rather than arguing over the meaning of "definitive" or how Courts are conventionally named. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 29 2006, 10:34 AM Post #30 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Unlike you, I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. But I'm not wrong here. I quoted my dictionary definition, you quoted yours. Mine supports my understanding; yours supports yours. Now, as for researching the Constitutional law in question, if you care to pay my hourly rate and out-of-pocket expenses, I'll be glad to do your research for you. Otherwise, do your own damn research. We are arguing over the word "definitive", which to the best of my recollection is not a word used in the Constitution. In fact, I don't recall any synonymous word being used in the Constitution either. (Which doesn't mean that it isn't there, it just means I don't recall it, offhand.) As for your bluster about "indefensible position that an Appellate Court can give a definitive interpretation to Constitution", the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about who may issue a "definitive" interpretation of the Constitution. Since you were the one who used the word "definitive", and since it isn't in the Constitution, it's a language exercise, not an exercise in Constitutional interpretation. Putting that aside, which I had done since we had already reached an impasse over conflicting dictionary definitions, the idea that there is one, and only one, Supreme Court, over more than 200 years, is hopelessly silly. The Court is an institution, with rules of behavior and people who populate it. Both change, and have changed, over time. That's why people commonly recognize that the Rehnquist Court was different than the Warren Court, and was expected to issue different sorts of rulings. As an old boss of mine used to say, you're hearing the words, but you're not listening to the music, and so you cannot hope to understand the tune. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 30 2006, 08:08 AM Post #31 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You against want to quibble over "definitive". I first used the word and used it in full accordance with the OED, which is the standard of academic scholarship. This definition is also confirmed by Merriam -Webster
So you find some "My First Dictionary" definition that serves your purposes and want to make it a matter a "language exercise" in order to distract from the point that you hold that Appellate Courts can make decisive, authoritative, "last word" etc judgments in interpreting Constitutional matters. I'll stick with what is the commonly accepted definitive definitions in the OED and MW. It's substantially homonymic with "final word" found in PLAUT et al. v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., et al. "Article III creates or authorizes Congress to create not a collection of unconnected courts, but a judicial department composed of “inferior courts” and “one Supreme Court.” “Within that hierarchy, the decision of an inferior court is not (unless the time for appeal has expired) the final word of the department as a whole.” Your insistence that there are many Supreme Courts in the United States is also just strange. The Constitution recognizes no such thing. The Supreme Court is one entity that operates under one set of rules. Again, I suspect you are using this line of argument to distract attention from your legal opinion that Appellate Courts can decisively interpret the Constitution, when they are only established under the authority of the Legislature and not the Constitution itself. Do you have any case law to substantiate this claim? And no, I am not going to pay your going rate. I have much better things to do with my money than hire a lawyer who solicits odd jobs on internet forums. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 30 2006, 09:10 AM Post #32 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Listen, asshole, I'm through with you. Each time, I tell myself, why bother with him, he's too argumentative for words and incapable of having a civilized disagreement without getting personal (and then hypocritically whining that the other person got personal first). My dictionary definition came from the first listing in dictionary.com, as if it matters, because that's the easiest lookup. You always need the last word, it's a compulsion with you. So go ahead, have the last word. I'll do my best not to respond, this time or in other instances. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 30 2006, 08:12 PM Post #33 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Thanks for the last word, amigo. You do not seem to be able to present a cogent argument for your position as to how a Congressionally mandated appellate court can render an authoritative and decisive interpretation of the Constitution, so you have to go on the war path. You also do not seem to be able to distinguish between banter and vicious personal attacks and name calling. I am not sure which is more unfortunate, but I would think the latter. But if you want to stop communicating with me or anyone else, that's not my problem. I just have to wonder what on earth you do with adversarial contract attorneys with whom have have to come to terms. To whom do you whine about them?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








12:42 AM Jul 11