Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [VIDEO] Judge Nap discusses Amy Barrett

  1. #1

    Lightbulb [VIDEO] Judge Nap discusses Amy Barrett

    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    But the Constitution to America is important isnt it? i haven't seen much from the Modern current Liberals talking about the American Constitution.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    He didnt really say much.

    Stare decisis is a real issue. She supports it. Its what she used to justify overturning Judge Michael McHaney's injunction against Pritzker's lockdown decree.

    https://lawliberty.org/forum/stare-d...nalist-judges/

    Stare decisis is the doctrine that a court should rule the way a previous court ruled even when the judges of the second court disagree with the earlier ruling. This doctrine poses an obvious problem for an originalist judge or justice. If a previous judicial decision reached an outcome contrary to what the original meaning of the Constitution requires, the originalist judge or justice is bound to rule contrary to that original meaning. In this way, the doctrine of stare decisis puts the rule provided by previous judges above the rule provided by the text of the Constitution.

    Here we have a potential SCOTUS justice who just upheld a lockdown decree and justified it by pointing to a SCOTUS case which upheld mandatory vaccinations...

    You cant make this $#@! up.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ockdown-decree
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    He didnt really say much.

    Stare decisis is a real issue. She supports it. Its what she used to justify overturning Judge Michael McHaney's injunction against Pritzker's lockdown decree.
    Her position is that you have to justify overturning precedent not that you can't: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2291141

    As a lower court judge she may not have wanted to be overturned but on SCOTUS she will feel free to change precedent.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post

    Stare decisis is a real issue.
    Only if the previous ruling is in line with the Constitution. Otherwise stare decisis is crap.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Only if the previous ruling is in line with the Constitution. Otherwise stare decisis is crap.
    So, my understanding is that judges are expected to rule in a similar way regardless of its constitutionality, which is why its an issue.

    This is a pretty good read:

    https://lawliberty.org/forum/stare-d...nalist-judges/
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Her position is that you have to justify overturning precedent not that you can't: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2291141

    As a lower court judge she may not have wanted to be overturned but on SCOTUS she will feel free to change precedent.


    I dont think she opposes the lockdowns.

    Even from an ideological standpoint, she could have dissented since the other two judges were in agreement. Her dissent would not have affected the ruling.
    Last edited by unknown; 09-29-2020 at 06:22 PM.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    So, my understanding is that judges are expected to rule in a similar way regardless of its constitutionality, which is why its an issue.
    Exactly. That's what they are taught in law school as mandated by the ABA.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



Similar Threads

  1. Trump predictably nominates Catholic judge Barrett
    By devil21 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 09-28-2020, 02:12 AM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-23-2012, 04:38 PM
  3. [Video] Judge Napolitano discusses Wikileaks w/ Glenn Beck
    By MRoCkEd in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 01:13 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 08:58 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 11:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •