User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: California's women on boards law is unconstitutional

  1. #11
    Points: 86,695, Level: 71
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredSocial50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    27890
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    34,977
    Points
    86,695
    Level
    71
    Thanks Given
    36,075
    Thanked 27,882x in 17,927 Posts
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At least there is resistance to insanity.
    Let's go Brandon !!!

  2. #12
    Points: 56,831, Level: 58
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 1,519
    Overall activity: 78.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    RMNIXON's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17844
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    16,537
    Points
    56,831
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    17,315
    Thanked 17,834x in 10,334 Posts
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OLD GUY IN FLORIDA View Post
    Soon corporate boards will have several hundred people serving. This will be required to cover all of the identity classes we now face. Lets see, women, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, gays, transgenders, little people, Wiccans, homeless. Did I leave out any important groups?
    And the never ending Symbolism over substance (or even competence) will be the ruin of these companies.

    The recent story about Netflix telling employees to dial back the WOKE crap might save them? We shall see.......................
    "Empires do not suffer emptiness of purpose at the time of their creation. It is when they have become established that aims are lost and replaced by vague ritual" - DUNE Messiah by Frank Herbert

  3. #13
    Points: 56,658, Level: 58
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 1,692
    Overall activity: 16.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    309781
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    19,475
    Points
    56,658
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    3,810
    Thanked 15,893x in 9,278 Posts
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Time after time state legislatures waste everyone's time and the taxpayers' money creating and passing bills into law that have zero chance to face a court challenge. Is it pandering? Of course it is, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle engage in it constantly. And when those laws are struck down and nullified by the courts, the ones being pandered to, regardless of Party affiliation, will cry about "unelected judges legislating from the bench". This time it was certain special interests on the Left that were being pandered to, but it won't always be.
    "The guy who kills me...I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." - Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak."
    - Larry McMurtry



  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (05-17-2022),OLD GUY IN FLORIDA (05-17-2022)

  5. #14
    Points: 581,708, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 74.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    418938
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    177,675
    Points
    581,708
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    24,464
    Thanked 66,513x in 46,198 Posts
    Mentioned
    1930 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Time after time state legislatures waste everyone's time and the taxpayers' money creating and passing bills into law that have zero chance to face a court challenge. Is it pandering? Of course it is, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle engage in it constantly. And when those laws are struck down and nullified by the courts, the ones being pandered to, regardless of Party affiliation, will cry about "unelected judges legislating from the bench". This time it was certain special interests on the Left that were being pandered to, but it won't always be.
    Well, far as I'm concerned, finding a law unconstitutional returns it to the legislature. Legislating from the bench requires the court to actually write law, as in Roe. I don't see finding, for example, DOMA unconstitutional as judicial activism.
    The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. -- Ronald Reagan

  6. #15
    Points: 56,658, Level: 58
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 1,692
    Overall activity: 16.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    309781
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    19,475
    Points
    56,658
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    3,810
    Thanked 15,893x in 9,278 Posts
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Well, far as I'm concerned, finding a law unconstitutional returns it to the legislature. Legislating from the bench requires the court to actually write law, as in Roe. I don't see finding, for example, DOMA unconstitutional as judicial activism.
    Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".
    "The guy who kills me...I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." - Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak."
    - Larry McMurtry



  7. #16
    Points: 581,708, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 74.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    418938
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    177,675
    Points
    581,708
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    24,464
    Thanked 66,513x in 46,198 Posts
    Mentioned
    1930 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".

    Right, great definitions.
    The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. -- Ronald Reagan

  8. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 742,341, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    473695
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    212,243
    Points
    742,341
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    137,806
    Thanked 124,679x in 80,420 Posts
    Mentioned
    2452 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The problem is that these politicians push this laws and pass these laws knowing they will get shot down by the courts. But the plan is to blame the courts for hurting whoever benefited from the law. It is an act that helps destroys institutions.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (05-17-2022)

  10. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 742,341, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    473695
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    212,243
    Points
    742,341
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    137,806
    Thanked 124,679x in 80,420 Posts
    Mentioned
    2452 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".
    Case law is not intended to create or rewrite legislation. Case law is judicial interpretation of laws, regulations, and legal precedence.

    If a court finds a law unconstitutional on its face, it should strike down the law. If the legislature wants to try to rewrite it to meet court muster, that is up to the legislature.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (05-17-2022)

  12. #19
    Points: 581,708, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 74.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    418938
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    177,675
    Points
    581,708
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    24,464
    Thanked 66,513x in 46,198 Posts
    Mentioned
    1930 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The problem is that these politicians push this laws and pass these laws knowing they will get shot down by the courts. But the plan is to blame the courts for hurting whoever benefited from the law. It is an act that helps destroys institutions.
    SO bot virtue signaling and undermining courts as an institution.
    The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. -- Ronald Reagan

  13. #20
    Points: 56,658, Level: 58
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 1,692
    Overall activity: 16.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    309781
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    19,475
    Points
    56,658
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    3,810
    Thanked 15,893x in 9,278 Posts
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Case law is not intended to create or rewrite legislation. Case law is judicial interpretation of laws, regulations, and legal precedence.

    If a court finds a law unconstitutional on its face, it should strike down the law. If the legislature wants to try to rewrite it to meet court muster, that is up to the legislature.
    You've described the system as it currently operates, and always has. The problem is that many people do not understand how it works and believe that the court "makes laws" in the sense that legislatures do.
    "The guy who kills me...I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." - Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak."
    - Larry McMurtry



  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-17-2022)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts