Thursday, July 18, 2013

What's with the courts starting to make sense?

The courts in the U.S. have long been known for making stuff up as they go along. Like the Right to Abortion that they insist is in the Constitution.

The courts are like the Pharisees of old. Remember how they somehow found that you could only walk so far on the Sabbath? Or could spit on a rock but not the ground? That came about by taking the Ten Commandments, making interpretations for certain circumstances, then expanding on those circumstances and elevating those new laws to the level of the original Commandments. They didn't go back to the original Law and ask if something was in the letter or spirit of the original Law.

And that's what our courts have been doing. But recently, there have been smatterings of common sense. And I'm not sure what to think about that.

Another court has ruled that the president has violated the Constitution with recess appointments. Recess appointments are allowed, but can only be done when the Senate is ... get this ... in recess.

That's the third court to make such a ruling, and the Supreme Court gets the case in their next session.

A court making sense? My view of the world will never be the same.


  1. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

    Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

    The dead rising from the grave!

    Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

  2. I agree with your conclusion and share your sense of relief that the Federal courts are making sense although I think your examples aren't quite up to snuff. There are 613 commandments in the law of Moses (see here for one list) to which then the Pharisees then added their opinions as to, for example, what constituted work.

    More germane is that the US Constitution doesn't limit the rights of the people, it limits the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights specifically grants the people and the states certain rights and powers. Go read the amendments nine and ten, which boil down to if the government hasn't been granted a right then it belongs to the people or the states.

  3. Stopped clock, blind squirrel, you know the rest.

  4. @2 CCO i thought i was the only one that thought IX and X should be the salient point in Roe.

  5. Oh, I don't agree with Roe v. Wade as I believe the baby has a right to live.

  6. @5 i didn't assume that you did agree with Roe. just that IX and X should be factors. am i wrong on that?

  7. Maybe it's trickle up common sense? Nah, that would be too much to hope for.

  8. The point, actually, is moot, seeing as the towers of Republican jello in the Senate so recently caved in to Harry Reid and have begun approving the aforementioned illegal appointments...thus making them former illegals.

    Just as they did in post-Weimar, early-NSDAP Germany, making that which was illegal legal and criminalizing legal actions.

  9. @6 jw--Heh; no the opposite occurred to be a couple of hours ago--I said to myself: Hey, wait (not having actually read the case, ever), the USC must have struck down a state law restricting abortion, thus IX or X would be in play.

  10. @9 CCO interesting. the case as i understand it was decided on the 14th due process clause and that is generally considered bs. i have always felt that the 9th, state having a right to regulate, or the 10th saying that it is the right of the people were the correct amendments to form the basis of the opinion. unfortunately, no one asked for my opinion. then or now. :(


Please choose a Profile in "Comment as" or sign your name to Anonymous comments. Comment policy