whoa whoa whoaaa

i'm english and irish in a french country
no hate!

but actually let's thinks about it i'm a monster not affiliated with any lame group
and one of my favourite hobbies is racial truth
let the truth be known! not all people are created equal! (or live equal, by choice and habit)

That is exactly what is being advocated.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/senators-grill-gorsuch-over-absurd-dissent-in-frozen-trucker-case-2017-3%3famp

I agree with Gorsuch, it's a ridiculous situation that the trucker found himself in, and the decision to fire him is unconscionable. But the failure is fundamentally that of the legislative, and it isn't Gorsuch's job to correct bad law.

But read any contemporary news article on the hearing and it's about bad Gorsuch kowtowing to corporate interests. What they want is judges that will "do the right thing" and make unilateral decisions for the majority. That isn't the purpose of the Judicial branch.

There's more to law than the letter. There are fundamental principles in our society and western law/society as a whole that aren't necessarily written, but are nonetheless fundamental to the process. One of those things is that a contract doesn't need to have a "I can't order you to take an action that would result in your death" clause to say they can't do that.

Judges are not, should not be, and have never been slaves to the absolute letter of the written law for this very reason. Law has many underlying fundamental principles that are in mind when laws are written and you end up in ridiculous circumstances if you refuse to acknowledge them.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 13 2020 09:11pm

These are things which are routinely covered in legislation, in effect making unlawful contracts null and void. This often happens with rental contracts, where in certain jurisdictions anything in the contract afoul or not specified in the legislation is legally unenforceable. There is no need to accept ridiculous circumstances.

Laws specifically cannot be too vague as to prevent enforcement (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine), but we trust judges to make decisions based on "fundamental principles" that are so vague as to be literally unwritten?

Something being unwritten, or more specifically not written into the law explicitly, does not mean it's vague.

For instance, it's all but certain that the supreme court would strike down a president attempting to pardon himself even though it's not written into the constitution that he cannot. The reason is because a fundamental tenant of western law is that a man cannot be his own judge and jury. This doesn't have to be written into the constitution because it was understood as a fundamental and obvious feature of law at the time the constitution was authored. There simply isn't a need to add a caveat into every single contract, law, and constitution because these things are well understood by anybody who reads them. They are often made explicit to outline the punishments or remedy for specific offenses, but they are fundamental nonetheless.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 13 2020 10:20pm

Asking a judge how he/she will rule without a case in front of him/here is even more stupid that asking a contractor to build a house with no materials. :/


Oh... my bad. I forgot that Dems don't care for reality and logic.

this one made me laugh




"Have you ever made unwanted request for sexual favors?"

come on now

This post was edited by Linux on Oct 13 2020 10:51pm

its sad because hirono didnt say squat as a hawaii member of congress when a senator from hawaii, Inouye (D), was having his way with assaulting multiple women

https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/09/hirono-finally-speaks-up-about-sexual-assault/

now that she’s a full on swamp demon she thinks it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars for her to call everyone else a sexual predator

This post was edited by excellence on Oct 13 2020 11:01pm