Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 7:32:52 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		I hope so.

Its a start, just a start, a smudge in the long road of legal/court reform IF we ever really get it in the first place.

The problem with law in this country is that 'the people' in which it is designed to serve have no clue or understanding about the rigors and pitfalls, dirty tricks bible, and prejudices they go up against should they try to run their own case pro se.

The system severely prejudices pro se's and the citizenry in general by using presumption in favor of state, administrative agencies which only serves to create more government and expense for litigants in the name of saving money and reducing court load.

This is a farce as pro se's immediately find out. Finally this judge took a nibble, its far too little but its a smudge none the less regarding complaints I have trumpeted for years regarding the leego system.

Things like state presumption, summary judgement, frivolous suit, any/all cases should have a jury trial automatically assumed unless rejected in writing, administrative agency power should be completely abolished, and they damn sure should not be allowed to utter one damn word that has the force of law or make quasi judicial determinations, of course at your expense and in addition to court costs, forced upon us in an informal judge judy style setting despite being able to be used against you in an official hearing. I can go on and on how corrupt the system has become.

How about the rubber stamp small claims business by attorneys are now allowed in small claims court? The acceptance of hearsay testimony and the reduced rules requirement even if you demand otherwise.






“Normally I thought the government has powers and we have rights, and rights trump power,” said Hamburger, however, who describes himself as “definitely not a libertarian” but dedicated to a rigorous system of laws.


At the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia opened his dissent in EPA vs. EPE Homer City Generation, under which the court approved of the E.P.A.’s sweeping air-pollution regulations, with this trumpet blast:

Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people’s representatives in Congress. [and this runs all the way down to the state county city and village level!]

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals explored the question at length in a 2011 decision involving the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository. In a decision rejecting a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s refusal to proceed with Yucca Mountain, Kavanaugh expressed thinly disguised doubts about the constitutionality of an agency, like the NRC, that can make decisions with the effect of law without any accountability to the voters. [How about supreme court justices anyone ever vote for one?]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/09/did-a-judge-just-kick-off-the-great-unraveling-of-the-administrative-state-with-sec-ruling/3/







< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/15/2015 7:36:30 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 11:57:31 AM   
JVoV


Posts: 3672
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline 		How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 2:47:00 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?


Until the idea is planted, it can't be nurtured and grown. There has to be a start. There has to be something for people to rally around. That the SCOTUS is bringing it up means there is a start.

I don't expect it to get too far, though; at least not in my lifetime. Bureaucracy will always look to grow, and to protect itself.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 3:52:38 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?


Actually, if I remember correctly, and I'd have to check, the whole affirmative action thing is from a SCOTUS dissent.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 4:07:06 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		Congress makes laws.
Departments make rules that are supposed to implement the laws.

Occasionally you get an appointee to a department that has an agenda to change rules to suit their agenda instead of implementing the laws passed by congress. Then you have to sue the department and rein them in.

I think the population needs more and stronger reins on that departmental horse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A good example comes with political appointee finagling not to live up to the law regarding spent commercial nuclear fuel.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1972 made it unlawful for commercial, civilian, entities to recycle nuclear fuel from commercial power plants. The Atomic Energy Act of 1972 split the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) into the NRC and the DOE. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to oversee commercial licensed nuclear facilities and radiation producing devices. (NRC license is required even for your Dentist's flash tube X-Ray machine) The DOE (Department of Energy) was created to be the sole entity responsible for refining highly enriched fissile material, refining of plutonium, and recycling of nuclear power plant fuel. (And you thought they were supposed to do something about coal and alternative fuels. De make da bombs) The Department of Energy was charged with taking custody of all spent commercial nuclear fuel by the beginning of fiscal year 1998.
Thanks to politics in the DOE; the plant built to recycle spent commercial fuel is a wrecked junkpile and a cleanup nightmare. The DOE has yet to take custody of one stick of spent commercial nuclear fuel despite commercial nuclear plant being required to pay into a tax fund for the DOE to take and process their spent fuel.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 8:18:03 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?


Until the idea is planted, it can't be nurtured and grown. There has to be a start. There has to be something for people to rally around. That the SCOTUS is bringing it up means there is a start.

I don't expect it to get too far, though; at least not in my lifetime. Bureaucracy will always look to grow, and to protect itself.



The SCOTUS? The guys whom say corporations are people with rights? Not only have rights, but their rights trump yours and mine. You would be tooting a different tune were there five liberals rather than conservatives on the bench. Image all the cases brought up since Chief Justice Roberts got his position. Everything concluded either as far left or pretty close to a moderate position. Would you be saying such things? Or joining the fray of many of your fellow conservatives in ranting a revolution?

Its a curious phenomenon. What is it to have freedom, but yet, that freedom does not bring unbalance to the whole of society? Scalia is not the 'Hero of the People' many from the 'modern conservative' philosophy would like to project. This is a person that successfully helped the G.W.Bush administration around the 8th amendment when it was torturing people. Not to mention help that administration avoid problems with the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. Unless your one of those whom condone torture as an acceptable practice?

Its one thing to fight for a cause for good reasons. Helping to bring resources together to find a cure to cancer. Helping wounded soldiers get back on their feet. Clean up a neighborhood from drugs and crime. Helping people to get to and from the voting station on election day. Helping to clean up a polluted river. Offering a place to stay for the homeless and frigid nights. These are causes worth fighting for!

Hating on the President because he's: liberal, in power, educated, intelligent, informed, etc; are not rational reasons. Yet, DS, there are a wide number of 'modern conservatives' whom fight against the President over issues real or not. The 'gay agenda' that the religious nuts think is attacking Christianity? Right now Glenn Beck and others are forming groups to resist the possibility that gay marriage might be legal in all parts of the nation. From Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter, there are plenty of these individuals that do not have a legitimate concern; but plenty of paranoid schizophrenia views of reality. The worst part is, when one or more of these individuals sets off some individual to 'destroy the Federal Government'; it'll be 4/19/95 all over again. In the aftermath of that moment, all these same individuals will slink back into the shadows. Saying they are not responsibile with the awesome power they wield.

People like to say the Founding Fathers were very liberal/conservative. Believing that by liking their viewpoints to the current issue, it some how justifies it. The Founding Fathers lived in a totally different age from ours. From culture to technology. There is a concept in higher education: Getting an 'A' is easy; maintaining that 'A' is hard. The same could be said in our form of government. That there are moments in which people strive help and even support good causes (i.e. Women's Sufferage) and evil ones (i.e. Joseph McCarthy).

In each of us, we see ourselves as the good guys. Its our eqo and pride that prevents us from being ultimately objective to our thoughts, actions, and words. Even in J.R.R. Tolkien's work when Gandalf warned Frodo about the ring: With this ring, I would have unbelievable power and try to do great good with it; but the ring is corrupted, and all my actions would be evil. The metaphor is to not get caught up in one's ego/pride when selecting the cause to support.

There are good liberal, moderate and conservatives causes that do work towards making our neighbors, states, and the nation a better place to live. Its to bad we can not identify these forces, thus, joining them sooner and helping push things forward. As sadly and to often, there are plenty of ways to join the evil forces whom are hell-bent on one form of destruction or another. Often masking their true intentions as good ones towards those whom are unaware.

You can tell the good causes from the evil ones. They realize the people whom resist their viewpoint are...ALSO....US Citizens whom...ALSO...have as much right to the nation's direction. Unlike many nations to exist before the USA, we found that 'mob rule' that trumps its views over the minority(ies) is...ALSO...a bad thing in the long run. So it does make sense to consider the minority's viewpoint; maybe even giving ground between liberals and conservatives on the 'good guys' side.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 8:36:20 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Its our eqo and pride that prevents us from being ultimately objective to our thoughts, actions, and words.

So is your post just "ego and pride" talking, or are you some species of superhuman?

K.






< Message edited by Kirata -- 6/15/2015 8:38:39 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 8:55:53 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Its our eqo and pride that prevents us from being ultimately objective to our thoughts, actions, and words.

So is your post just "ego and pride" talking, or are you some species of superhuman?


I like to think of myself as being a Primarch for the Adeptus Astartes.....




(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/15/2015 9:11:40 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?


Until the idea is planted, it can't be nurtured and grown. There has to be a start. There has to be something for people to rally around. That the SCOTUS is bringing it up means there is a start.

I don't expect it to get too far, though; at least not in my lifetime. Bureaucracy will always look to grow, and to protect itself.



The SCOTUS? The guys whom say corporations are people with rights? Not only have rights, but their rights trump yours and mine. You would be tooting a different tune were there five liberals rather than conservatives on the bench.

No the SCOTUS who say the Second Amendment has noting to do with being in a militia.

And yes, for years we whined about liberal judges legislating from the bench. From the SCOTUS on down. It took us a while to catch up with you guys on that one. By my thinking, we still have a lot of damage to mend. In fact Joe, I'll tell you a secret. The only reason, the one reason, I voted for Bush was two Supreme Court nominees.

By the way, the rest of your spew was bloviation.

< Message edited by HunterCA -- 6/15/2015 9:12:57 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/16/2015 7:51:58 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The SCOTUS? The guys whom say corporations are people with rights? Not only have rights, but their rights trump yours and mine. You would be tooting a different tune were there five liberals rather than conservatives on the bench. Image all the cases brought up since Chief Justice Roberts got his position. Everything concluded either as far left or pretty close to a moderate position. Would you be saying such things? Or joining the fray of many of your fellow conservatives in ranting a revolution?


Would I be saying that it's a good thing that the SCOTUS, even in a dissent (please tell me you realize that this was a "win" for the liberal Justices; please tell me that), that it's not right for an unelected bureaucrat to make sweeping changes to laws that effect every day citizens? Damn right I would! That you could even consider I wouldn't means you don't know much about me at all. I'm not surprised.

Even if it were the liberals writing it, I'd agree.

Your partisanship is so blatant, I'd be surprised if your right shoe had any wear on it.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/16/2015 3:24:46 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I like to think of myself as being a Primarch for the Adeptus Astartes.....



Astarte? Oh, can't resist:

http://www.astarte.ca/


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/16/2015 3:33:23 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Your partisanship is so blatant, I'd be surprised if your right shoe had any wear on it.



I'm beginning to think we may be dealing with an "off duty" NASCAR driver.



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/16/2015 4:37:55 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Your partisanship is so blatant, I'd be surprised if your right shoe had any wear on it.



I'm beginning to think we may be dealing with an "off duty" NASCAR driver.



Michael

....well, never mind. I'm sure everyone knows my opinion.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/17/2015 8:52:44 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I like to think of myself as being a Primarch for the Adeptus Astartes.....



Astarte? Oh, can't resist:

http://www.astarte.ca/





um...... This is what goog came up with Adeptus Astartes




Space Marines

Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes
Establishment

First Founding (30th Millennium)

"They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them and in the furnace of war forge them. They shall be of iron will and steel sinew. In great armour I shall clad them and with the mightiest weapons they will be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight them. They shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear."

snip

Of the 1,000 or more Space Marine Chapters thought to be in existence at the present time, a blessed few can trace their beginnings back to an age more than ten thousand standard years ago in the late 30th Millennium, when the blessed Emperor of Mankind still walked amongst mortals. In those days, the Emperor first created the Primarchs, 20 immortal superhumans blessed with extraordinary intelligence, charisma and sheer physical might who were to be his generals and closest comrades during the Great Crusade to reunite the scattered and long-isolated human colony worlds after the end of the Age of Strife. The Primarchs wielded powers the like of which are not known in the Imperium today, yet they were lost to the Warp in an accident deep within the Emperor's gene-laboratories beneath the fortress that would become the Imperial Palace and were scattered, still in their gestation capsules, to worlds across the galaxy by the will of the Dark Gods of Chaos.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Space_Marines



thats pretty intense joether.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/17/2015 8:59:09 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The SCOTUS? The guys whom say corporations are people with rights? Not only have rights, but their rights trump yours and mine. You would be tooting a different tune were there five liberals rather than conservatives on the bench. Image all the cases brought up since Chief Justice Roberts got his position. Everything concluded either as far left or pretty close to a moderate position. Would you be saying such things? Or joining the fray of many of your fellow conservatives in ranting a revolution?


Would I be saying that it's a good thing that the SCOTUS, even in a dissent (please tell me you realize that this was a "win" for the liberal Justices; please tell me that), that it's not right for an unelected bureaucrat to make sweeping changes to laws that effect every day citizens? Damn right I would! That you could even consider I wouldn't means you don't know much about me at all. I'm not surprised.

Even if it were the liberals writing it, I'd agree.

Your partisanship is so blatant, I'd be surprised if your right shoe had any wear on it.




Its a win for us, there should be no need for the people to be required to 'bitch' about it in the first place much less for several years all over the internet before getting recognition that the judicial has infringed upon our reserved rights to the point of no return which I am sure was the intent. Everyone who would bring it up would be ridiculed as CTers, nutters, or some attached political extremist label by the statists, when in fact its strictly law nothing more. A first step for mankind imo! There is so much that needs to be reformed in the court system its not funny, will take a hundred years to sort back out easily. The pendulum effect which should never happen in law.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? - 6/17/2015 9:16:19 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
How can a Justice unravel anything when writing the dissent?


Until the idea is planted, it can't be nurtured and grown. There has to be a start. There has to be something for people to rally around. That the SCOTUS is bringing it up means there is a start.

I don't expect it to get too far, though; at least not in my lifetime. Bureaucracy will always look to grow, and to protect itself.



The SCOTUS? The guys whom say corporations are people with rights? Not only have rights, but their rights trump yours and mine.


Actually thats a good point.

Corps are in fact people, SCOTUS is correct, however with the level of corruption in the judicial system we live in today which always fails to recognize homonyms in proper context. Hence if they want to cheat and allow the people in the corps to have 2 votes one per each individual and one per corporate individual they will manipulate it as you are rightfully complaining about until they achieve their goal before fixing it and declaring oops.

The word people simply means 'community', you can have a large community with many sub communities, where the 'Community' is referenced again by the 'People'.

The difference is that the 'joe plumber' people are 'natural' people with 'natural' rights and corporations are 'artificial' people and the courts have abused this since its inception way back around king james era.


Here is a little back ground on this, its nothing new but its great to see people starting to pay attention to what is really going on behind the scenes!

Keep in mind of course that they brought over the only law they knew, the laws of england which are still the core and roots of law today in america:

The king is, and ever has been, a corporation sole'; that corporation sole; a corporation is an artificial person that never dies 4; that is invisible, and exists only in intendment and consideration of law; that has no soul, and cannot therefore be summoned before an ecclesiastical court or subjected to spiritual censure; that can neither beat or be beaten in its body politic, nor commit treason or felony in its corporate capacity; that can suffer no corporal punishment or corruption of blood, and can neither be imprisoned or outlawed, its existence being merely ideal5. So far he will be satisfied that the King of England, as described in law books, is in some sense an ideal personage. It may be said, indeed, that the King is not more an ideal personage than a parson or other corporation sole; that it is merely the office, which is converted by a fiction of law into a person ; and that the object of this transmutation is to have the same identical rights kept on foot, and continued for ever by a succession of individuals, possessing the same privileges, and charged with the same duties. But, on reflection, it will appear that there but differ, is a wide difference between the King and other porpora- other corporations sole. Derations

' Blackstone, i. 271. iv. 2. 2 Ibid. i. 252. 257.
3 Ibid. i. 469. 472. 4 Ibid. i. 467, 468. 5 Ibid. i. 477. , . o i i o

There is therefore something higher, more mysterious,and more remote from reality, in the conception which the law of England forms of the King, than enters into Ideal theory the notion of a corporation sole.

The ideal King of the english common- law represents the power and majesty of the whole community. His fiat makes laws2. His sentence condemns. His judgments give property, and take it away. He is the state'. It is true, that in the exercise of these powers, the real King, to whom they are necessarily entrusted, is advised, directed, and controlled by others.

But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the King.
' Attorney-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 246.

2 In an argument before the Court of King's Bench, in 23 Edw. III. it was said, " Que le roy fist les leis par assent dez peres et de la commune, et non pas lez peres et la commune." Y. B. 23 Edw. III. i. 3. b.

8 " The person of the king, in name, is the state.

He is to all intents and purposes the sole representative of the state." Solicitor-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 1183.

It is not my intention to dispute the truth or reality of this view of the constitution of England.



and of course even blackstone wasnt very happy with the idea.

So here is one to ponder..... if the king is sovereign, and the king is the state, does that also apply to the states being sovereign thus they are kings? 'legally' that is? Anyone want to tackle that one?





< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/17/2015 9:27:03 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Did A Judge Just Undermine The 'Administrative' State? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094