Attention Sheldon Richardson: DO NOT Accept Your Suspension!!
- Thread starter Green Jets & Ham
- Start date
- Status
F
flgreen
Guest
C'mon
The federal judicial process has become a joke. The rulings coming out of the 9th circuit, and the 6th circuit are about as far from what the framers of the constitution had in mind as it can possibility get.
The bill of rights is clearly under attack. By the court system that was put in place to protect it.
Proving Malfeasance against a federal judge? LOL I know that had to be a joke
Careful, your post might get deleted.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
So, no, then. Ok, got it. You have a direct link to the mind of the framers, so, what? We should just let you decide things? Or should we let judges decide things, but then run it by you to make sure it lines up with what the founders would have wanted? I assume that with such strong opinions, you have read the decision, and understood the reasoning, right? So can you be more specific in your criticism? Or is it that you are reasoning backwards from the conclusion? That is putting the cart before the horse. I think you may want to question whether or not you, as a Jets fan, are really the one who is biased here.
Actually yes, most of the stuff Judges decide nowadays should be decided by the people (Flg, you, me, etc.) through their elected representatives on the state, local and federal levels. Thats how the Founders envisioned the system they designed. They didn't set out to design an oligarchy of unelected Judges. I can show you some of the things Jefferson wrote on this exact topic that would make the hair on the back of your neck standup. He was scared to death of what we have now, in his lifetime he saw it heading in this direction, and he warned against it in the strongest terms.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
I don't want to get political, but suffice it to say that I do not in any way agree that we have an "oligarchy of unelected judges." You want this to be a political issue, and it simply isn't. The NFLPA are the ones who made the arguments ultimately accepted by the court. The NFL and the NFLPA both agree that the court has the power to resolve the dispute. The legal reasoning is what is at issue here, and I haven't heard too many people actually addressing what the decision actually says.
Also, you guys are the ones who are basically saying that judges shouldn't have to follow any rules, not me. If you're really worried about unelected judges, then you would certainly want the procedural rules to be vigorous. But again, it sounds more to me like you started with the conclusion that he's guilty, and nothing else even matters to you. But that's a much more radical position to take, that courts can assess guilt at the outset and then line up the legal arguments to support it. I'm sorry, but if you are worried about unelected judges, then that is exactly what you should be looking to avoid.
Also, you guys are the ones who are basically saying that judges shouldn't have to follow any rules, not me. If you're really worried about unelected judges, then you would certainly want the procedural rules to be vigorous. But again, it sounds more to me like you started with the conclusion that he's guilty, and nothing else even matters to you. But that's a much more radical position to take, that courts can assess guilt at the outset and then line up the legal arguments to support it. I'm sorry, but if you are worried about unelected judges, then that is exactly what you should be looking to avoid.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your conversation with FLG veered away from strictly discussing this case to discussing the role of Judges in a larger context, and thats what I was responding too. You were very dismissive of FLG's concern, as if it had no basis in the framing, but in fact his concern was shared by the founders and framers, none more than Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson, a stanch advocate of decentralized power, recognized that a federal government empowered to judge the extent of its own authority was one that would never remain limited in size or scope. Because of this, the power of the federal judiciary was always of great concern to him. The following is a small, but representative, sample of a number of Jefferson’s views on the power of the judicial branch of the federal government.
He said Judicial tyranny made the Constitution “a thing of wax.”
If, as the Federalists say, “the Judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1819
Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of Judicial tyranny.
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
Jefferson plainly had an answer against Judicial tyranny.
This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
He saw where Judicial tyranny was leading.
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. —Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821
He saw Judicial tyranny as an undermining of the Constitution.
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820
Jefferson saw Judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.
I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821
He saw Judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.
… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823
For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional Judicial tyranny.
… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
The discussion is incomplete unless you also cite the other founders, some of whom were federalists and certainly did not agree with Jefferson about the nature of the federal judiciary. This was an ongoing debate, and guess what? The anti-federalist faction did not win. That's why we have the federal judiciary we have now. If you want to overturn Marbury v. Madison, I find that to be an exceptionally radical position, and frankly, I wonder exactly what system you would have replace our system of judicial review. Because whatever it is would be untested in our history. By the way, you know that our early Congresses and judiciary were filled with the very same founders who drafted the Constitution? And even then, having just drafted and ratified the Constitution, they already disagreed about its meaning? So can we stop acting like it is so easy to discern the founders' intent when reading the Constitution?
F
flgreen
Guest
I'm afraid we'll have to take this debate to the Huffington Post.
The idea that federal judges, and some entire circuit courts, aren't making decisions more based on political affiliations then the Constitution of the United states, is even more ridiculous then the premise of Ham's "Liberate Sheldon" campaign.
The difference is, Ham is joking. Some of the court decisions are just a joke.
The idea that federal judges, and some entire circuit courts, aren't making decisions more based on political affiliations then the Constitution of the United states, is even more ridiculous then the premise of Ham's "Liberate Sheldon" campaign.
The difference is, Ham is joking. Some of the court decisions are just a joke.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
The idea that you can just hand wave away the entire legal process, saying it is based on political affiliations, on the basis of no factual information, without ever even attempting to address what the court said, is strange to me. Believe me, I've got my own thoughts on politics and the judiciary, but I can't just assume that any decision I didn't like was politically motivated. It is unfair and frankly, it just misses the point, because the judge didn't issue a decree, he issued a decision, where all of his legal reasoning is laid out for everyone to see. So if you're going to accuse someone of political bias, it would at least be fair to argue against their legal reasoning first.
F
flgreen
Guest
Like I said I'll meet you over at the Huffington Post. Won't be hard to find I"ll be the only one not wearing an aluminum foil hat
Johnny Baseball, Careful with your 2nd paragraph where you mentioned "you guys"! I am one of the Jet fans on this site. You want a civil conversation on here, fine! Everyone has their own opinions. Accept them! You want to get nasty? Step back and take a deep breath. Because I'm the one you don't want to F#%* with!!
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
I just want to know whether you read the decision? Do you even know what the judge said? Because if not, then I just don't see how you can have the strongly held opinion that the result was reached by bias. I just want you to defend the point you're making, but you won't do it.
I'm pretty sure thats where the NFLPA took Tom Brady's argument yesterday, to achieve the result that they did.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
So are you suggesting that you are going to become physically violent with me? Is that what that means?
I telling you that you need to step back and regroup. How in your pea of a brain (no insult intended) do you think I am physically able to use violence on the internet? Accept that Brady won and let it go. Show that you are more mature and walk away.
Nick, with all due respect, do you know how many threads there are in this forum that I have absolutely no use for?
A LOT, so I just don't post in them, I don't feel like I have to announce that I have no use for those threads because obviously some people do, thats why they are posting in them, and thats perfectly fine with me, we don't all share the same interests. Some threads that interest me may not interest you, some threads I find distasteful or objectionable you may find stimulating and necessary, and visa versa, to each his own man, but why feel like you have to be dismissive of something other people are engaged in ... if you don't like it, just ignore it, that will save you a lot of aggravation.
- Status