cheapbag214s
Joined: 27 Jun 2013
Posts: 18472
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
Location: England
|
 Posted: Sat 16:38, 31 Aug 2013 Post subject: Randy says |
|
|
that they negate the suggestion that such "means" were "improper." Randy calls this mandate "unprecedented." Except,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], of course,http://www.ewwealth.com/, for these precedents. Randy also says that for the Court to take account of the mix of laws that it strikes down -- assuring that the mix would not lead reasonable observers to believe they only found unconstitutional laws they don't like -- "would be acting entirely politically." That too is not true. "Political" in this context means partisan. It is perfectly appropriate (and not in this sense "political") for the Court to account for how its behavior weakens or strengthens its own institutional integrity. As I've described it elsewhere (my own "legal arguments" that Randy is "skipping over") there is a fidelity to mean-ing and a fidelity to institutional role. A Court that ignores either is not behaving properly. Finally,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Randy says (or his title says) that I argued: "If the Republican Justices Do
The post has been approved 0 times
|
|
