• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have Wisconsin courts over-stepped their bounds?

cpwill said:
:shrug: it was given a clean bill of health. i'm thinking that portion of the legal challenge goes nowhere.
Click to expand...

Not by the courts which are the official arbiters of what's legal.
 
I don't have a problem with this. If there is a question over whether or not a law is constitutional (as in an actual lawsuit alleging so) and that suit is still being decided by the courts, the law shouldn't be implemented until the final decision has been rendered.
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't have a problem with this. If there is a question over whether or not a law is constitutional (as in an actual lawsuit alleging so) and that suit is still being decided by the courts, the law shouldn't be implemented until the final decision has been rendered.
Click to expand...

This policy sounds reasonable, but opens the door to indefinite delay while frivolous lawsuits are filed sequentially, the next one right as the last one is rejected, to prevent the will of the people from being implemented until the opposing party can steal back into power under the old laws.

A short period of review might be in order, but after that, if the law passed constitutional muster, it must be implemented, and people who claim to suffer harm under the new law can do what they do now, file a lawsuit and wait.
 
No. The courts have the duty to determine if a law is passed in accordance to the laws, and specially, the constitution of its domain. When a law is challenged on a viable LEGAL BASIS, it should automatically delayed. The reason delaying should happen automatically is to prevent harm from being done by a law that isn't just (in the legal sense at the least).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom