Recent content by Justin Z

You miss the point, which is that a power not specifically delegated in the Constitution is accepted to be given to the judiciary and the reason for that is because it makes sense when inferred from the totality of the law in question (the Constitution). Just as inferring states with federally...

The Constitution doesn't authorize judicial review at all, so that's not a good argument. And ironically your namesake advocated for it in the Federalist Papers yet didn't see fit to fight to get it into the Constitution. Good thing John Marshall interpreted Madison's intent, albeit in a case...

For Nero, the Executive was the Judiciary (and really, the Legislative, too). That post is nice rhetoric, but you're not even comparing two types of fruit within it, much less apples and oranges.

. . . and not coincidentally those who claim to be able to divine backward 225 years in regards to an intentionally generalized, broad document also think statutory interpretation and legislative intent are so arcane and indeterminate. Go figure, right?

Er yeah. Braindead today. Good point about the senior judges and I do not know the answer.

Actually, probably not. Administration will appeal back to the D.C. Circuit (edited) for an en banc hearing and if accepted it'll likely get reversed, because there are more democratic appointees on the entire circuit bench.

Also, sliding scale fines based on income are done in Belgium and nobody even bats an eye at it.

Crazy, I know, the thought that the executive branch be afforded some discretion in executing the laws. Oh wait, once again, the activist legal positivists are only so deferential when it suits their political goals.

Bummed your buddy didn't get an attorney because a cop waiting outside a bar is most likely "casing" and a clear fourth amendment violation, unless he had a valid pretext for the stop aside from your friend leaving a bar parking lot.

It's the hypocrisy of activist legal positivism in action. Declare acts illegal on technicality/language of the statute while ignoring congressional record/clear intent when it's something you don't like; ignore the so-called "plain language" when you do like it.