In California, Illegals Come First; Californians Don't Matter

Yes its more lax but the culture also results in rampant corruption and cartel control.

They celebrate the gangsters down there.

 

Judges are not capable of legislating.

Can’t do that. Would take congressional legislation to do that.

Yea, most of the nonsense you post is irrelevant.

 

It’s a federal crime. Federal agents would need to handle.

Federal law is enforced by federal agents.

 

Not standing up for freedom is also in their culture.

 

More evidence we're dealing with the ignorant.

I don't know if Liberals as a group really are this ignorant, or if we're just getting a crowd of ignorant Liberals in this forum, for some reason.

 

Basic civics. There is no mechanism for a judge to legislate.

 

So you struggle with basic civics as well? Judges have no ability or mechanism to legislate.

 

They're not supposed to, but they certainly have a mechanism.

Case precedent is almost like law.

 

Even Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court confirmations hearings laughed while admitting she legislated from the bench.

 

No, there is no mechanism.

No it isn’t. All the judiciary can do and does is rule on a laws constitutionality. They can’t change it or create new law.

 

Federal judges do it all of the time.

• Dred Scott v. Sanford.
• Plessy v. Ferguson.
• Korematsu v. United States.
• Roe v. Wade.
• Kelo v. City of New London.

The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it—certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.

Since the late 1930s, the courts have gradually abandoned their proper and essential role under the Constitution to police the structural limits on government and neutrally interpret the laws and constitutional provisions without personal bias. Many judges refuse to interpret the Constitution and statutes according to their original public meaning (or perhaps lack the understanding of how to do so). Instead, they seek to impose their personal preferences. But a judge who looks beyond the text of the Constitution “looks inside himself and nowhere else.”

While the Supreme Court of the United States should interpret the laws and constitutional provisions according to their original public meaning, the lower courts—and state courts when dealing with federal constitutional rights—are bound by the precedents of the Supreme Court. To the extent that a case presents an unresolved question, lower courts should likewise give effect to the original public meaning of the text before them.

Although attempts to define “judicial activism” are often criticized as too broad, too partisan, or simply “devoid of content,” a simple working definition is that judicial activism occurs when judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference. The proper measure is not whether a judge votes to uphold or strike down a statute in any given case. Adhering to an original understanding of the law is the only way to consistently “minimize or eliminate the judge’s biases.”[5] At times, this means that judges must strike down laws that offend the Constitution.

Some scholars mistakenly argue that judges engage in judicial activism whenever they strike down a law,[6] but judges’ subjective policy preferences could just as easily lead them to uphold unconstitutional laws that they favor as to strike down ones that they oppose. In either situation, judges abdicate their duty of fidelity to the law.

Judicial activism is therefore not in the eye of the beholder. In applying the law as it is written, judges may reach conclusions that are (or may be perceived to be) bad policy but are nonetheless correctly decided. Judges are charged not with deciding whether a law leads to good or bad results, but with whether it violates the Constitution and, if not, how it is properly construed and applied in a given case. Labeling as “activist” a decision that fails to meet this standard expresses not policy disagreement with the outcome of a case, but disagreement with the judge’s conception of his or her role in our constitutional system.

Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new “rights” not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge’s own sensibilities, to name just a few.[8] Rather than succumb to these temptations, judges should strive to put aside their personal views and policy preferences in order to maintain impartiality and render sound judgments according to the laws as written.

The concept of judicial activism is much easier to demonstrate with real cases than to describe in the abstract. Reasonable people may disagree about whether judges have properly carried out their duty in difficult cases, but some instances of activism are plain. When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers’ vision of our republican democracy—famously, a government of laws and not of men—is compromised. Three recent examples demonstrate that this risk remains acute...continue -> https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

 

Those who's tasks are interpreting laws and actually applying them to specific situations get a lot of leeway and discretion. In some cases they can practically even make their own law, for all intents and purposes, or nullify laws, effectively.

They rarely ever face any consequences or are held to account for doing this, so essentially they have that power.

They do have to stay within certain boundaries, but the exact delineation of those boundaries can be a blurry line, and lots of times some of them step over.

Not only that, but the existing law gives prosecutors and judges a huge amount of discretionary power, and they could have people imprisoned for the rest of their lives for little trivial crimes, theoretically, or even non-crimes (things that no one in their right mind thinks should be a crime).

There are multiple threads going into more detail about this in the Law & Justice section.

 

You're mistaking what they should do with what they do do.

While Constitutionality is very important, oftentimes "Constitutionality" is used as an excuse to effectively rewrite law.

Sometimes this can actually be appropriate in the interest of justice, since the laws were not the best thought out for that particular situation. More often though it gets political.

 

No they don’t, as they can’t. There is no mechanism for the judiciary to create legislation. Basic civics.

 

There is no mechanism for the judiciary to create legislation. This is basic 6th grade level civics.

 

No, I’m pointing out what they do.

The judiciary can not, does not and never has rewritten a law. They have no mechanism to do so.

 

Southerners were conservatives, not liberals.

 

So you are one of the elitists you claimed to despise?

 

And then he had them let go! Bottom line in that discussion was, Trump doesn't actually interview the grunts, and he leaves that up to his contractors that wind the bid! It's pretty clear that most the leftist on this site really haven't a clue how LARGE developers like Trump Inc interacts with contractors that seal the bid/contract for a project..

 

So in your infinite wisdom the company doing the hiring is also excluded from federal laws, like I said, why have any federal law if even McDonalds is not held to background checks and reporting falsified documents...

WOW the leftist are far worse then I had imagined, unless you're just an example FAR left extremism!

 

That’s one shiny strawman you made there.

 

That's not a rebuttal to our argument.

Are you being intentionally disingenuous, or is our disagreement based entirely on semantic misunderstanding?

Yes, obviously we're not talking literally, but for all intents and purposes they sort of can. If court decisions and established court precedents can act much the same way as the law does.

 

Maybe it actually is, compared to how they were living in Mexico.

But how long until it becomes similar to Mexico?

 

Well it surely matches your dream world too