- Messages
- 4,251
- Reactions
- 1,850
And for some brilliant reason they get to stay in that position for a lifetime. Weird. Actually I understand why and I do not agree with it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I spent a couple years in law school reading USSC decisions about 6 hours a day. Overall they have done a pretty good job over the years.
As for accepting cases for review, if they feel that there was no error in the lower court, or that there is no constitutional issue involved they refuse the case so as not to waste everyone's time. They may not agree with the lower court decision on other grounds, but if there was no violation of the constitution, and no legal error in the lower court there's nothing they CAN do.
IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted....).
You did notice the case was rejected and as usual the Supremes don't explain why.
CheaperThanDirt Forum : Supreme Court Declines Gun Law Case - View Post
Couldn't be that Roberts who sold the Country out on Obamacare did it once more on this issue?
9 again to rule/judge over 300+ million. Yep, I am sure that's what the founding fathers intended for this country. To go from 1 king to 9.
I'd much rather have 9 intelligent folks have to listen to both sides of an issue presented by other intelligent folks and then debate it between themselves than leave it to just one person.
I can see where you are coming from but that is not the kind of country the founders set up. Not to be ruled by 9 judges. The power belongs to the people, which gives authority to 3 parts of the government not 1. But The People have the final say and if they do not like the government or its rules and regulations The People have the right to change it to how they see fit. The government or the judges do not have that right. They are to help do what we want. The judges or any part of the government never has the right to do anything contrary to The Peoples will.
Which People's will? Look at the last election. 51% went Dem and 47% went Repub. Should the government have to listen to the 51% only? Should we the people vote on every issue? I thought that was why we hired legislator types?
I do not have all the answers and never claimed to. 51%Dem to 47%Repub...what about the Independents? Only 3%? The Peoples will? All 100%.
We are never gonna agree 100%, and never have. Not being 100% agreeable is fine. Heck I am not 100% agreeable with anyone. Let the The People be the final deciders of either settling on something or letting it wait until later.
I understand and agree, kumabear17. But ultimately left to the people to decide, not just for a few judges to decide for us all. That is my whole point. Especially if the majority of the people disagree with the judges. Then who should have the final word?