Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 1974769" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p><strong>In Pearson v.Callahan, the Court restored the lower courts discretion to dismiss on legal</strong></p><p><strong>uncertainty grounds without definitively resolving the constitutional claim.</strong>16</p><p>Scholars have expressed concern that constitutional law will stagnate and that</p><p>lower courts will struggle with the grant of standard-less discretion apparently</p><p>recognized in Pearson.17</p><p></p><p><a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=facultyworkingpapers" target="_blank">http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=facultyworkingpapers</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>If courts dismiss for uncertainty without resolving the Constitutional issue then it remains uncertain. Some would contend it allows the courts to ignore making a ruling on the Constitution,(law) and provide a buffer for the state and it's actors to avoid liability and continue in whatever actions caused the dispute. If it's never resolved an issue would remain uncertain and could be dismissed over and over. The purpose of the courts is to provide justice not protect it's own. Sounds like a stacked deck with the state dealing off the bottom to it's own. Amazing we can have a De facto tort reform for suits against the state but not for suits like the Blitz fiasco.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 1974769, member: 1294"] [B]In Pearson v.Callahan, the Court restored the lower courts discretion to dismiss on legal uncertainty grounds without definitively resolving the constitutional claim.[/B]16 Scholars have expressed concern that constitutional law will stagnate and that lower courts will struggle with the grant of standard-less discretion apparently recognized in Pearson.17 [url]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=facultyworkingpapers[/url] If courts dismiss for uncertainty without resolving the Constitutional issue then it remains uncertain. Some would contend it allows the courts to ignore making a ruling on the Constitution,(law) and provide a buffer for the state and it's actors to avoid liability and continue in whatever actions caused the dispute. If it's never resolved an issue would remain uncertain and could be dismissed over and over. The purpose of the courts is to provide justice not protect it's own. Sounds like a stacked deck with the state dealing off the bottom to it's own. Amazing we can have a De facto tort reform for suits against the state but not for suits like the Blitz fiasco. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom