Florida "Stand your ground" law "Unconstitutional" ?

[ob1]

The latest incarnation of the Florida law has been ruled "Unconstitutional" by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge. Nit-picking from the bench.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Wayne]

This seems odd "The judge ruled that under Florida's constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature." The court makes law ? I thought it was their job to enforce the law not make it.

 

[bbbass]

All I got to say is, HUH?

 

[ob1]

All I got to say is, HUH?

It would be interesting to see if this guy has a record of being a liberal activist judge. Even though he might have a dubious degree of standing by virtue of him being a judge who sits over related cases, I agree that we have hogs rolling in the chicken coop.

I wonder if we are beginning to see a new "shell game" tactic developing here.
Reminds me of SCOTUS "call it a tax" C.J. Roberts re-crafting 'Bamacare...Washington State A.G. Ferguson and Portland Mayor Wheeler attempting to circumvent national immigration law.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Love those activist judges!

 

[WALawyer]

This seems odd "The judge ruled that under Florida's constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature." The court makes law ? I thought it was their job to enforce the law not make it.

I have not read this FL case, so I don't know exactly what's going on, but courts make law all the time and have for hundreds of years since the English developed the common law. The common law is law in every sense of the word and is created by courts using the stare decisis principle. Legislatures cannot create a law for every single possible situation, so the courts just had to make it up as they went along to solve disputes and that's how it still is in many contexts.

 

[DuneHopper]

Congress needs to pass a law holding judges accountable when they break the Constitution they swear and Oath to, for that matter Congress and the Senate should be held accountable. Lately the last 8 years only the public is being held accountable on the conservative side.

 

[Stomper]

Judges are merely LAWYERS who have schmoozed their way into a black robe, and I'd bet most of them don't even bother wearing pants underneath when wearing them.

 

[Wayne]

The common law is law in every sense of the word and is created by courts using the stare decisis principle.

How can the stare decisis principle be used if there is no precedent ?

 

[mrblond]

read it.. its the NEW version where the defendant needs to prove he was in fear for his life.. this is a good thing.

Or maybe I read it wrong, but it was the jist I got out of it.

 

[WALawyer]

How can the stare decisis principle be used if there is no precedent ?

Borrow from other cases that are similar, or just make it up.

 

[jackrv]

read it.. its the NEW version where the defendant needs to prove he was in fear for his life.. this is a good thing.

Or maybe I read it wrong, but it was the jist I got out of it.

Actually it was that way before the new version was passed.

Now you are innocent until the state proves otherwise. That is what the judge found unconstitional.

 

[bsa1917hunter]

Judges are merely LAWYERS who have schmoozed their way into a black robe, and I'd bet most of them don't even bother wearing pants underneath when wearing them.

Come on now. Are you saying you would wear pants under that robe? I bet not!!!

 

[11Charlie]

Sounds to me like this judge needs to get bounced and hard!!

 

[revjen45]

Thomas Jefferson was concerned about the Judiciary becoming a ruling oligarchy, and 'twould appear that he was right.
A judge is just a shyster in a black robe, a .gov lawyer who knows who he/she works for and it sure ain't We the Peons.

 

[Connor Murphy]

Judges are merely LAWYERS who have schmoozed their way into a black robe, and I'd bet most of them don't even bother wearing pants underneath when wearing them

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to personally find out if the judiciary is indeed sans trousers and report back to us. Good luck and call Joe if you need bail money.

 

[Stomper]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to personally find out if the judiciary is indeed sans trousers and report back to us. Good luck and call Joe if you need bail money.

They probably have lizard feet and prehensile tails.... what if they actually have an egg pouch?!

 

[CHLChris]

By the way, I no longer call these types "liberals". Liberals loved the nation, wanted it protected, and believed in rights. These judges and politicians like this are "progressives." They love the nation they envision we could become through progressive action, they want only their own folks protected and their enemies oppressed, and they believe only in the rights they believe worthy of granting to the plebes.

I respect liberals, but there are almost none left to find anymore. Progressives want our nation transformed into something different and call us racists, deplorables, and fascists.

Sorry to preach...

 

[revjen45]

This is proven beyond all doubt by the ruling that the Malheur protesters can't really present any evidence in defense. Reichs Richter Gloria Navarro is so concerned about jury nullification that the accused peons won't be allowed to bring up any Constitutional arguments or present any evidence that might reflect badly on the Einsatzgruppen or the Neue Reich in general. She might as well just declare it an open and shut case, skip the defense, declare them guilty, and off to the Konzentrationslager. This would de rigeur with the situation that currently exists in the Federal legal industry. Roland Freisler would be proud.
Relevent quote: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." _Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria

 

[cigars]

Judges are merely LAWYERS who have schmoozed their way into a black robe, and I'd bet most of them don't even bother wearing pants underneath when wearing them.

Haha I don't want to know how you know that!